The challenge of the part we play in God’s kingdom (Zech 6:9-15)
Zech 6:9-15
What is the purpose of the Church on this earth? Is it evangelism and mission? Care for the vulnerable in the wider community? Worship? Discipleship and equipping Christians to do God’s will? Congregations may stress one or other of these within a combination. Reflecting on the exiles, Boda gives a helpful definition that incorporates all these aspects and fits both the Old and New Testament people of God. He says, ‘[T]he main purpose of the redeemed people of God is to participate in the restoration of God’s rule in this world.’[1] What does this look like? For the returned Jews, it meant building the temple where God would dwell and having a Davidic king who would rule on the Lord’s behalf so that eventually even the nations would join the covenant people (Zech 2:11). The sign-act that Zechariah is commanded to perform points to this coming king.
Symbolic coronation and Branch
The crown made from the exiles’ offering (Zech 6:10-11) is plural throughout (Heb. ‘atarot) but is used with a singular verb later (Zech 6:14), which could indicate a composite crown (one gold, one silver) put on the high priest’s head.[2] Joshua is not ‘Branch’; the prophecy speaks to Joshua and describes Branch in the third person (‘behold, a man… Branch’, not ‘you are the man Branch’; Zech 6:12), but he points to Branch. This is confusing because priests came from the tribe of Levi, whereas Branch is a messianic descendant of David (Jer 23:5) from Judah, so there is a mismatch between the sign and what it signifies. Moreover, temple building is a royal and not a priestly duty. Crowning Zerubbabel would make more sense, but either he hasn’t arrived yet[3] or, as Webb suggests, he went back to Persia to represent the exiles’ case as governor in the temple building (cf. Ezra 5:3-17; Hag 1:1).[4] However, in the latter case, why not wait with the sign until he returned? One reason may be that even a symbolic crowning of a royal descendant would look seditious to the Persian authorities.
Fulfilment on two levels
A further difficulty is the ambiguity of Zechariah 6:13 in Hebrew, which reads, ‘and he/there will be a priest on his throne and the counsel of peace will be between the two’. Is the reference to a priest-king or a king and a priest? Since priestly and royal duties were strictly separated (King Uzziah was struck with leprosy when he encroached on priestly tasks; 2 Chron 26:16-21), Jews would more naturally read this as dual leadership with a ruling king and counselling priest. This has partial fulfilment in Zerubbabel and Joshua’s harmonious co-operation and temple building with the help of ‘those far off’ (Zech 6:15), the returned exiles.
However, Zerubbabel will never be king, so the prophecy possibly looks to a later fulfilment with a messianic king who will build an eschatological (end times) temple. ‘Those who are far off’ in this case may refer to the nations joining in the temple building. The ambiguity of v.13 and the fact that the high priest stands for two roles and wears a composite crown invites the possibility of a future priest-king who unites these functions. Moreover, Joshua has already stood as a sign for Branch’s coming (Zech 3:8-10) adding the association of priesthood to the royal role. Since Branch’s arrival is closely followed by the removal of iniquity, there may be a hint that Branch himself is its instrument, much as the high priest places Israel’s sins on the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement and sends it away (Lev 16:21-22). Nevertheless, such an understanding of Zechariah’s prophecy would have been incredibly difficult for Jews to recognise (see ‘For Interest’ below).
Our part in the kingdom
The key point that the prophecy closes on is the call for diligent obedience (Zech 6:15). God promised that His kingdom would come but His people participate in bringing it about. As Christians, we can celebrate the fulfilment of this prophecy in Jesus Christ, the priest-king who removed sin, who builds His temple (the people of God) and whose rule already operates among His own. Yet, we too are encouraged to continue in obedience, whether in testifying to what God’s rule looks like and inviting others to join His kingdom (evangelism/mission), demonstrating His justice and goodness through care in the community, acknowledging His reign in our lives in act and word (worship cf. Rom 12:1-2) or equipping others to fulfil their role in the kingdom. May we participate in His kingdom with joy.
For interest – Further reflections on a priest-king
As mentioned above, the most obvious way of understanding the sign-act for Jews is to see two figures, one royal and one priestly. The separation of the roles was deeply ingrained in Israel’s history. Even as early as the wilderness wanderings (after the exodus), a Levite called Korah who was not of the family of Aaron, as well as members of other tribes rebelled against the idea that only Aaron’s family should minister as priests and were punished with death (Num 16:1-40). King Uzziah’s condemnation for usurping priestly duties (2 Chron 26:16-21) is strongly underlined by his subsequent leprosy, a term used for a variety of skin diseases in the Old Testament (not just for Hansen’s disease). ‘Leprosy’ symbolised uncleanness and its victim was barred from the temple (i.e. fellowship with God) and isolated from the rest of the community. Such punishment is a serious warning against attempting to merge these roles. Further, Jeremiah’s prophecy about the future restoration of Israel likewise envisaged distinct offices; the righteous Branch, David, to rule and the Levitical priests to continue offering sacrifices (Jer 33:15-18). The fact that king and priest came from different tribes further reinforced their separation. Further, Israel’s kings became so evil before the exile that the exilic prophet, Ezekiel, envisaged serious restrictions on ‘the prince’ in the future restoration whereby he will not be allowed to enter the inner court where sacrifices are offered; he can only watch from the threshold of the gate leading into it (Ezek 46:2).
Precedence for a priest-king
Nevertheless, there is some precedent for a priest-king, though the evidence is meagre against the overwhelming witness of separate roles. Both David and Solomon offered sacrifices (2 Sam 6:17; 24:25; 1 Kings 3:4; 8:62, 64), though it is unclear whether they used priests or not. Even if the king was seen as the ultimate priest in these early stages of Israel’s history, the fact remains that the day-to-day priestly tasks were delegated to the priesthood. The strongest evidence for a combination of roles comes from Psalm 110, which was widely recognised as Messianic. This psalm describes the Davidic king on the model of the priest-king Melchizedek (Ps 110:4), who was king of Salem (i.e. Jerusalem; Gen 14:18). This psalm is much quoted in the New Testament, which gives us, Christians, a sense of its prominence, but given the mysteriousness of Melchizedek even in Genesis, it is hard to blame Jews for not ‘getting it’ (on Melchizedek see my post The Significance of Melchizedek). We are all guilty at times of not seeing what we do not expect to see. Finally, the reference to Israel as ‘a kingdom of priests’ (Exod 19:6) may again point to a drawing together of priestly and royal roles, but the expression is too opaque to yield an obvious sense.
Humility in the face of what we do not know
I laboured the point of how difficult it would have been for Jews to see the significance of Zechariah’s prophecy as a reference to a priest-king because Christians can be quick to condemn Jews for not recognising what is obvious to us in retrospect. However, peering through a glass dimly, as Jews did before Jesus, it would have been impossible to predict Him and His exact ministry, the way He reconfigured concepts like the temple as His own body (John 2:19-21) or the Christian re-interpretation of the temple as God’s people (1 Cor 3:16). There is a lesson in this for us, too, as we look towards the ultimate restoration of all things. Many Christians are highly confident that they understand exactly what and how things will happen in that final future, but the truth is that we, like the Jews, interpret the obscure and difficult in the light of what is clear and push the incongruous or incomprehensible to the periphery. Given God’s often unexpected ways, we do well to hold our convictions with humility and be open to a different fulfilment than what we expect. The Lord may surprise us all.
[1] Mark J. Boda, Haggai, Zechariah, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 347.
[2] Alternatively, the plural in Hebrew may intensify the meaning (NASB ‘ornate crown’, v.11). However, given the two roles or people whom the crown represents, I find the composite crown interpretation more convincing.
[3] Prophecies in a book are not always arranged chronologically, so this prophecy may be earlier than the visions (Zech 1:7) and given before Zerubbabel came from Babylon for the first time.
[4] Barry Webb, The Message of Zechariah, BST (Nottingham: IVP, 2003), 108, n.220
If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.