PHILIPPINE MISSIONARY INSTITUTE

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO MR. HECTOR BELANDRES

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
OLD TESTAMENT III: PROPHETIC BOOKS

BY
RODEL MAR GUBAN

BIGA 1, SILANG, CAVITE

OCTOBER 2014

Introduction to the Book of Zechariah

The book of Zechariah is the longest among the Minor Prophets and is said to be the most
difficult (Longman 2006, 484). The difficulties of the book are largely due to conflicting theories
of its unity, dates and authorship, and the interpretations of its individual pericopes.
This study will be limited only to the person of the prophet, historical background of the
book (with a general overview in regard to the historical setting concerning the parts of the
book), literary analysis, and its theological message.
I. Zechariah the Prophet
The name of the prophet Zechariah is one of the most common names in the Scripture
which probably means Yahweh remembers or Yahweh has remembered (LaSor 1996, 401).
There are more than twenty-five individuals with the name of Zechariah in the Scripture
(Longman 2006, 484), particularly among the priests and Levites (Smith 1984, 167). There were
some suggestions concerning the real personality of the prophet Zechariah:
(1) A son of the high priest Jehoiada who are slain in the court of the house of the LORD by
the order of king Joash (837-800 BC) in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22.1
(2) A king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, the son of Jeroboam II who reigned only six
months before being murdered in 745 BC (2 Kings 14:29; 15:8; 11)
(3) A Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, one of the two men Isaiah chose to witness his
writing of the words Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz on a large tablet (Isaiah 8:2).
(4) The prophet Zechariah who began prophesying in Judah about 520 BC. This prophet is
called the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo in two places (Zechariah 1:1, Ezrah 5:1;
6:14).
1Probably the same person referred to by Jesus in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51.

Among the above suggestions, item (4) is the most probable. In that case, the prophet
Zechariah is a contemporary of Haggai and the book is a product of post-exilic era. 2 But a
question on the real father of Zechariah needs to be answered because in some place he is called
a son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1) and in other place, a son of Iddo (Ezrah 5:1; 6:14; Neh. 12:16).
There are varied explanations provided by scholars throughout the history concerning this
phenomenon:
(1) Jerome: Berechiah was the prophets father in the flesh, and Iddo was his father in
Spirit (Bullough as cited by Smith 1984, 167)
(2) Hengstenberg: Berechiah was Zechariahs father who probably died while Zechariah was
young, and that the grandfather Iddo reared Zechariah.
(3) Mitchell, Mauch, Jones: the result of confusion of the prophet the son of Iddo, with the
Zechariah son of Jeberechiah.
Obviously item (1) is not a position to take because of its apparent subjective characteristics.
The strength of item (2) is that the Hebrew term for son could also mean descendant but
there seems to be lack of concrete information concerning the death of Berechiah (Smith
1984, 167-68). Item (3) is probably the most appropriate explanation because it has more
evidences than the rest like the following examples:
(1) One copy of Epiphanius (codex Augustanus) says that Zechariah the prophet was put to
death by Joash, king of Israel, and the Targum to Lamentations 2:30 calls the martyred
prophet Zechariah, the son of Iddo (Mitchell as cited by Smith 1984, 168).
(2) Chrysostom and Jerome both identified the prophet with the son of Jehoiada but C.H.H.
Wright calls this a gross anachronism (Wright, Zechariah and His Prophecies).
2 There were some objections however in the date of the second part of the book
which is from chapters nine to fourteen which will be discussed later.

Although there were varying opinions concerning the issue of the real personality of the prophet
Zechariah, we could at least be certain that Zechariah like Ezekiel was from the priestly family
that were called in prophetic ministry. (Mason as cited by Smith 1984, 168).
II. Historical Background
Zechariah is set against the background of the first generation of returnees from the Babylonian
exile (Longman citing Berquist and Longman 2006, 485). The night visions are during the
second year of king Darius (520/519 BC). The returnees during the decree of king Cyrus
concerning their return were confronted with several oppositions as it were expressed in Ezrah
3:8-4:5; 5:1-6:22). Added to this were other personal and practical difficulties (Hag. 1:5-11;
2:15-19;Zech. 8:9-13). The prophecies of Zechariah, especially from chapters one to eight have
common themes with that of Haggais since they were contemporaries (LaSor 1996, 400).
However, there were obvious differences between the prophecies of these two prophets. Sara
explained it very well in his article. These differences will be enumerated below:
Haggai:
(1) Haggai bear explicit witness to the eschatological outlook linked to two focal points. on
one hand the Temple, and on the other the House of David, in the figure of Zerubbabel
son of Shealtiel.
(2) The prophecy to Zerubbabel is presented as a personal prophecy.
(3) This is the only place in the Bible where a prophecy of the End of Days is focused upon
an historical figure of the present identified by name - The shaking of the heavens and the
earth and the overthrowal of the throne of kingdoms are at hand, and already Zerubbabel
is prepared to be the instrument of the change (Italics added).
(4) Haggai sees Zerubbabel as a king, whose kingdom is made possible by a change in the
political structure.

Because of these characteristics of Haggais preaching, some scholars argued that he is preaching
open rebellion to Persia that eventually lead to the execution of Zerubbabel, and perhaps
Zechariah and the prophet himself.
Zechariah
Now the following are the characteristics of Zechariahs preaching:
(1) He also refers to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel explicitly and implicitly.
(2) In the book of Zechariah there is a large number of prophecies of consolation.
a. A man called the Branch ( )has a central position in them e.g. Zech 612-13

Conclusion: To quote Sara, The positions of Haggai and Zechariah differ, and their approach to
the (question of redemption and of Zerubbabels role is not univocal, but from the prophecies of
both we m ay learn that during the period of the Restoration the returning exiles were stirred by a
great eschatological hope, alternately flaming up and flickering low, which was one of the
decisive factors in the molding of the character of the people of Judah. The words of Haggai bear
explicit witness to the eschatological outlook linked to two focal points. on one hand the
Temple, and on the other the House of David, in the figure of Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel.
However, the problem with dates and authorship of the book come into play when the book is
viewed as disunited. (1982, 79-80)
III. Literary Analysis
The consensus of biblical scholarship is that the book is divided into two parts. Whereas
chapters one to eight are genuine prophecies of Zechariah because of its immediate concerns for
the post-exilic generations during 520, chapters nine to fourteen were a different stories in that

there were many proposals for a different setting and hence, different authorship. The immediate
concerns of Zechariahs generation were stated below:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Retribution against the Gentile nations (1:7-21; 6:1-8)

Security of Jerusalem (2:1-12)
The construction of the temple (4:1-14)
The problem of sin in a supposedly purified remnant (3:1-10; 5:1-11)
Clarification of fasts in commemoration of various stages of the destruction of the city
(chaps. 7-8)

Chapters nine to fourteen on the other hand, reflect apocalyptic and eschatological imagery,
indicating a more distant future. That the book is from two different periods and authors were
supported with several evidences (Longman 2006, 487):
(1) Two sections focus on different horizons
(2) Differences in literary form: chaps. 1-8 are composed of Zechariahs night visions and
seermons on fasting whereas chapters nine to fourteen consist of two larger sections (911; 12-14) designated as oracle (mauua).
(3) Some vocabulary and syntactic constructions that occur in one half do not occur in the
other.
(4) Internal evidence for the date of 9-14 does not agree with the setting of 1-8 in the early
restoration period.
(5) The somewhat opaque 11:4-17 is often applied to different scenarios in the Maccabean
period.
(6) In chapters 1-8 specific historical persons play the major (Zechariah, Joshua, Zerubbabel
in 6:10-11; 7:2), whereas in 9-14 no personal names occur.
(7) In 1-8 dates are important; 9-14 are undated.
(8) In 1-8 Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel, a Davidic descendant, are the leaders of the
community; 9-14 use instead the metaphor of shepherds applied to an undefined referent.
Item 1, 2, 6 and 7 are arguments based on the differences among the two parts of the book.
However, these differences do not necessarily mean they have different authorship since if we

consider the fact that a writer could write different genres, although the works would be
essentially different from each other, are still from the same author. In that case, the author is
regarded as having an orderly mind. Thus, Zechariah could still be the author of the two parts of
the book despite the differences from these parts.
Item 3 could be rebuffed due to the possibility of development in the vocabulary or style of
an individual. Indeed, we should not limit the capability of Zechariah the prophet to develop his
own style and vocabulary. The mention of Greeks (9:13) in item 4 do not necessarily correspond
a later date (after Alexanders conquest). And item 5 have the difficulty of ascertaining the
identity of the three shepherds. In fact, there were at least thirty proposals for their identities
(Kremer as cited by Harrison 1969, 953).
Zechariah 9: A Divine Warrior Hymn?
Another point that the writer wants to discuss in this paper is the ninth chapter of
Zechariah. It was argued by some scholars that since the second part of Zechariah is different
from the first, it must be understood by a different means. In a journal by Paul Hanson, he argued
that the mistake of most scholars is to apply historicizing method to all prophetic literature, be it
classical or late (Hanson 1973, 37-38). His observation is of interest since he is saying that the
later prophecies were unlike the classical prophetic literature in that it has apocalyptic elements.
Thus, the second part of Zechariah might be designated as an apocalyptic literature or at the very
least, its predecessor. As an alternative, Hanson proposed a contextual-typological view which
utilizes first the roots of form criticism to determine the genre of a particular unit and discern its
function and setting. The typological aspect on the other hand is focused on the difficulties of
dating the material. This hymn according to Hanson, is elevated to the cosmic level, i.e., to the

original realm of the ritual pattern of the conflict myth. In a movement which is as irresistable as
the ritual pattern itself, Yahweh, the storm-deity, intervenes directly, securing universal
dominion, and restoring the fertility of the earth. No foe, earthly or cosmic, can impede that
movement or frustrate his purposes. The combined forces of the ritual form of the conflict myth
and the harsh post-exilic historical situation have brought us to the threshold of fully-developed
apocalyptic. (1973, 59)
The Divine Warrior theme is of mythological origin. The Ugarictic people for example,
saw their god Baal, as a warrior whose chariot is the clouds and the lightning, weapon. This
pagan god, battles with Yamn (sea) in order to establish his kingom. Israel, who occupied the
land of these people, was influenced by this concept and portrayed Yahweh the same way as a
Divine Warrior. According to Cross (1973), there were two traditions of the Divine Warrior
theme among the Hebrew community. First is the historical victory in Exodus and the Conquest.
Second, is during the time of Israels monarchy (cf. Schellenberg 2001, 103-4). This theme has
common pattern according to some scholars: (1) battle; (2) victory; (3) enthronement; (4)
banquet; and (4) palace building.
Conclusion: Although the theory of multiple authorship of the book of Zechariah is prevalent
among the scholars, the inadequacies of the evidences and arguments as demonstrated by the
above counter-arguments prevent us from a hasty conclusion on the matter. Hence is the need for
further development in the studies conducted to the book.
III. Theological Message
Since the book of Zechariah is divided into two parts, its theology will be drawn accordingly:
A. Zechariah 1-8

(1) 1:1-6 The restoration community should reflect on the past and not make the same mistakes
as their forefathers.
(2) 1:7-6:8 (The Eight Night Visions)
a. First Night Vision (1:7-17) The nations would yet experience the day of the Lord, and Zion
would again be the particular object of his favor.
b. Second Night Vision (1:18-21) Whatever opposition has been directed against Gods people
will be smashed.
c. Third Night Vision (2:1-13) The city will be protected and will overflow with prosperity.
d. Fourth Night Vision (3:1-10) The cleansing of the priest indicate that the generation would
be able to build an acceptable temple for God.
e. Fifth Night Vision (4:1-14) The work on the temple was Gods work (4:6), and he would
see to its completion (4:9).
f. Sixth and Seventh Night Visions (5:1-11) These visions are correlated with each other. The
restoration community is intended to purge Israel and produce a purified people.
g. Eighth Night Vision (6:1-8)- God would avenge himself by punishing the nations.

B. Zechariah 9-14
For the second part of Zechariah, the recurring themes were:

(1) Salvation and judgment of both Israel and the nations by war (9:1-8; 9:11-10:1; 10:3b11:3; 12:1-9; 14:1-15)
(2) The day of the Lord introduced with the appearance of a messianic king (9:9-10; 11:4-17;
12:10-13:1; 13:7-9)
(3) The suppression of idolatry (10:2-3a; 13:2-6)

In lieu of these sporadic theological themes in the book of Zechariah, the writer finds it
necessary to conclude on the theological significance of the book. The book is deeply rooted in
the preceding history of revelation, and is itself revelatory of the messianic and cosmic future. In
it God promises to reclaim Jerusalem as the centre of his empire, and to rebuild the temple as his
royal dwelling (Vanhoozer 2005, 863)

Bibliography
Hanson, Paul D. "Zechariah 9 and the Capitulation of an Ancient Ritual Patern."
Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973: 37-59.
Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testamet. Eerdmans, 1969.
Sara, Japhet. "Sheshbazza and Zerubbabel - Against the Background of the
Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah." Zeitschrift fur die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1982: 66-98.
Schellenberg, Angeline. "One in the Bond of War: The Unity of Deutero-Zechariah."
Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.), December 2, 2001: 101-115.
Smith, Ralph L. Micah-Malachi. Word Biblical Commentary. Word Incorporated, 1984.
Tremper Longman III and Raymond Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2006.
Vanhoozer, Kevin. Dictionary of Theological Interpretations. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Books, 2005.
William Sanford Lasor, Hubbard and Bush. Old Testament Survey. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996.

Secondary References:

Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion
of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 162-3.
J. Kremer, Die Hirtenallegorie im Buch Zacharias. Munich: Aschendorff. 1930.
Mason, R. A. The Relation of Zechariah 9-14 to Proto Zechariah. ZAW 88. 1976. 227-39.