The mystery of the pierced one (Zech 12:10-13:1)

The church I grew up in emphasised right doctrine and serious study of God’s Word but was suspicious of emotions. Solid instruction in the Bible is essential, but as my church tried to ensure correct teaching, even God’s love became a dry proposition to be accepted in our head but carefully removed from feelings. Likewise, conversion seemed to mean intellectual assent to a set of statements about our sin and God’s redemption. As a result, I rarely experienced the wonder of God’s love in that church. Emotions alone are not enough, of course, but neither is intellectual knowing. To use an illustration, who would wish to marry someone who loves them in theory? We want to feel, experience, and know that someone cares for us deeply with their emotions, words and actions. Conversely, if our affections are not engaged, we might grit our teeth and do our duty by the other person, but we will live in a loveless relationship.

The identity of the pierced one

God’s restoration involves our whole person and raw emotions are evident in our reading as God’s people mourn over what they have done. But who is ‘the pierced one’? Many translations amend Zechariah 12:10 to read that the people ‘look on him whom they have pierced’ but the Hebrew manuscripts consistently have ‘look on me’, a reference to God who speaks at the beginning of the sentence (v.10).[1] Piercing someone (Hebrew daqar) involves a thrusting motion done with a sword or spear, which usually ends in death (e.g. Num 25:8; Judg 9:54), but how can God die? And if it is not God, who is this mysterious figure? We have already seen a recurring theme of an afflicted Davidic king (Messiah) in the book (Zech 9:9; 11:12).[2] and the pierced one may well be the same person. Moreover, mourning for his death is compared to the grieving at Megiddo for another Davidic king, Josiah (Zech 12:11; 2 Kings 23:29; 2 Chron 35:25),[3] which strengthens the Davidic link. Given the close connection between God’s representative (Messiah) and the Lord Himself, verse 10 makes the point that those who kill the person God sends have the same attitude to God Himself (cf. Zech 11:12-13).

The way of transformation

The people’s grief in Zechariah 12:10 over what they have done to God’s appointed king is a turning point in their relationship to Him. What they feel is no superficial emotionalism whipped up by skilful influencers, but a truly transformative moment, when Jerusalem and the royal household change their allegiance. Such a new outlook is made possible by God’s intervention that brings a new attitude in their hearts through ‘a spirit of mercy and pleading’ (v.10). The grief is compared to the loss of a firstborn son (v.10), an appalling tragedy in the ancient world where continuation of a family’s line and business was linked to such a son. Mourning is widespread in the land, and includes all the families, both husbands and wives, as well as royalty (David), priests (Levi) and their respective descendants (Nathan, Shimei; Zech 12:12-13).[4] Moreover, God makes a new beginning possible by the provision of cleansing from sin (Zech 13:1).

A Christian perspective

With Christian hindsight this mysterious passage makes good sense, and the gospels identify or allude to the crucified Jesus as the fulfilment of this prophecy (John 19:37; Luke 23:48). Jesus being both human and divine, His execution was not only a rejection of Messiah (a human Davidic king as Israel understood it) but the piercing of God Himself. Moreover, it becomes clear that God’s provision of cleansing from sin (Zech 13:1) is precisely through the death of the pierced one, a connection hidden from the original audience of the prophet. Further, those who came to believe and follow this afflicted, yet resurrected Messiah received not only a new spirit and outlook but the Spirit of God (Acts 2:37-38 cf. Ezek 36:27). And there is more. The New Testament also points to a future fulfilment when Christ returns (Matt 24:30; Rev 1:7), though we may not fully grasp what will happen then. In the meantime, we can marvel at the amazing generosity of God in the face of our rejection as sinners. May His love truly penetrate our heart and lead to a life lived for Him.

---

[1] The emendation is small and only involves one letter in Hebrew, so it is not unreasonable, but there is no manuscript evidence for such a change. Despite the awkward grammar, the sentence makes sense and should be kept as is.

[2] The king coming on the donkey (Zech 9:9) evokes David’s story who was rejected as king by most of Israel in favour of his son, Absalom, and fled from Jerusalem on a donkey gifted to him (2 Sam 16:2). While this animal is not mentioned later, David would have returned on a donkey when he was eventually re-instated as king. The word translated ‘humble’ or ‘gentle’ in the Zechariah passage most often means ‘afflicted’, which again underlines the theme of suffering and rejection. In Zechariah 11:7, the prophet symbolically plays the role of Israel’s shepherd (i.e. their Davidic king) and is paid off with a pitiful amount given the value of his work, the people’s expression of contempt for their Messiah and their God (Zech 11:12-13). At least one rabbinic tradition recognised in Zechariah’s depiction of the pierced one a suffering Messiah, though this was carefully distinguished from the Davidic Messiah.

[3] How to understand the mourning of Hadad-Rimmon is debated. Both Hadad and Rimmon were pagan gods, but comparing grief over the death of Messiah to such pagan deities seems counter-intuitive. Most commentators conclude that Hadad-Rimmon must have been a place near Megiddo and therefore it is an allusion to the mourning over Josiah’s death at Megiddo. See Anthony R. Petterson, Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi, AOTC 25 (Nottingham: Apollos, 2015), 264-65.

[4] Commentators are puzzled by the mention of Nathan and Shimei because neither are particularly well-known. Nathan was one of David’s sons (2 Sam 5:14) and Shimei was Levi’s grandson (Exod 6:17). Luke’s genealogy traces Jesus’ ancestry through Nathan rather than Solomon (Luke 3:31), so there may have been a tradition for these alternatives, though we have no evidence for Shimei being important. See Petterson, Haggai, 265-66.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.