Zechariah 11 · NIVAC

Original Meaning

Announcing Judgment (11:1–3)

AFTER 10:3B–12 with its bright hope for all the tribes of Israel, this section snaps the reader back into present reality. There is little question that 11:2 imitates the “call to lament,” a prophetic form used to pronounce judgment on nations (e.g., Isa. 14:31; Jer. 6:26; Joel 1:2–14).2 This form used three key elements: an imperatival call to lament (“wail”), a vocative address of lamenting group (“O pine tree”; “oaks of Bashan”), and a reason for the lament introduced by ki (“for the cedar has fallen . . . the dense forest has been cut down”). The use of this form reveals the negative character of this section. By inviting lament, it implicitly announces judgment.

These three verses share many points of connection. Thematically, they all deal with disaster; rhetorically, they employ a style that demands attention (“open . . . wail . . . listen”), are interlinked through the anadiplosis technique (“cedars . . . cedars”; “wail . . . wail”),3 and use imagery from the botanical world (“cedars . . . pine tree . . . oaks . . . dense forest . . . rich pastures . . . lush thicket”).

These similarities should not veil the fact that each verse uses a unique image. Verse 1 mixes metaphors by envisioning a fiery conflagration of great cedars that are presently protected within the gates of a city called Lebanon.4 Verse 2 then picks up on the cedar of Lebanon but changes the imagery from fire to cutting as the cedars are fallen, ruined, and cut down; the addressee changes from Lebanon to the pine tree and oaks of Bashan. The addressee in verse 3 is uncertain as the imagery shifts to the destruction of rich pastures and lush thickets in northern Israel used by shepherds and inhabited by lions. A close look at these various images will reveal their significance for the message of 11:1–3.

Lebanon was well known for its cedar forests (e.g., Isa. 14:8), a source of timber for both the palace and temple in Jerusalem (e.g., 1 Kings 5; 7). Because of this use of Lebanon cedar, both Lebanon and cedar occur as images in prophetic indictments of the Davidic kings (e.g., Jer. 22:20–23).5 Other contexts reveal a broader significance for these images. The Lebanon cedar is used to express the downfall of proud Assyria and Egypt in Ezekiel 31 while the cedars of Lebanon and oaks of Bashan symbolize the arrogance of humanity in Isaiah 2:12–17.6

The Hebrew word behind “stately trees” in Zech. 11:2 may be an example of double entendre. This term is used sometimes of God (e.g., Ps. 8:9; Isa. 33:21), often of human leaders (e.g., Jer. 14:3; 30:21), and even once of the glory of the cedar tree (Ezek. 17:23). Most likely this word refers to the cedar tree here while simultaneously playing off of the dominant leadership nuance. In Nahum 3:18 this term for “stately trees” appears together with “shepherds” to describe royal officials attached to the Assyrian court. As discussed under Zechariah 10:1–3, the image of the shepherd is connected with leadership within a nation. It is used for the leaders of Judah in preexilic times, but it can also be used for foreign kings and their courts (see Jer. 25:34–38; Nah. 3:18).

The response of the lions in verse 3 is often identified with the wail of the shepherds in the same verse. However, the image of the roaring lion is not an image of mourning but of attack and victory (Isa. 5:29; Jer. 2:13; Ezek. 19:7; 22:25; Amos 3:4; Zeph. 3:3).7 This view is confirmed by noting Jeremiah 49:19 and 50:44, in which a lion emerges from the lush thicket of the Jordan to exact judgment on a foreign nation (Edom, Babylon).

The term for “rich pastures” sounds similar to the term for “stately trees” in the previous verse. Although this term is used normally for a man’s robe (e.g., Gen. 25:25), in Ezekiel 17:8 it describes botanical fertility in Ezekiel’s allegory about the fate of Judah, which sought prosperity and protection from foreign nations. It is this latter sense that is intended here, although it is unclear what botanical feature is in view.8

These many images all share in common the destruction of plant life: cedars are burned and felled, fertile pastures destroyed, and lush thickets ruined. This results in the mourning of various trees and shepherds within Israel’s territory (oaks of Bashan, shepherds near the Jordan).

Our analysis of the form and imagery of Zech. 11:1–3 exposes a passage that has exerted direct influence, namely, Jeremiah 25:34–38.9 The call to lament (Jer. 25:34 = Zech. 11:2) is followed by the cry to listen to the wailing of the shepherds, using the identical Hebrew construction (Jer. 25:36 = Zech. 11:3). The same vocabulary appears in both contexts: wail (verb), listen, wail (noun), shepherds, stately trees, destroyed, lion. Jeremiah 25:34–38 concludes a section envisioning not only the destruction of Judah and surrounding nations (25:9, 15–26a), but also the destruction that will ultimately overtake the Babylonians after seventy years (25:12–14, 26b). The call to wailing at the end of Jeremiah 25 is thus global in character, looking beyond Judah to the kings of the nations who will be destroyed.

Another passage with significant links to Zechariah 11:1–3 is Isaiah 10. In this passage, Isaiah prophesies God’s judgment on the Assyrians and the return of a remnant. At the conclusion of Isaiah 10, the prophet speaks of this destruction as God’s felling the thick forests of Lebanon (cf. Zech. 11:1–3: Lebanon, cut down, rich pastures).

What is fascinating is that these two passages announce the judgment of the nations that exiled the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Assyria, Babylon). By alluding to these passages, Zechariah reminds the people that God is in control of history and that he will bring judgment against foreign nations who subjugate his people. The reaction of the trees and shepherds within Israel’s territory probably indicates that this message is directed also against domestic leadership, who operate under the authority of the Persian emperor and contribute to Zerubbabel’s demise. Their positions will be threatened by God’s coming judgment.

Bridging Contexts

PROPHETIC SIGN-ACTS. FOR those who have studied the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the prophetic sign-act is a familiar form of prophecy. Based on his extensive work on these two prophets, Kelvin Friebel has reviewed various hermeneutical paradigms used by interpreters to grasp the significance of these sign-acts.30 The dominant approach to sign-acts is what he calls the “inherent efficacious” or “causal link” paradigm, in which the sign-act sets “the depicted event in motion.” This view is based either on theories of sympathetic magic or the power of the spoken word and limits the referent of the sign-act to a future event. But there are other views of the sign-act. Some have argued that it merely expresses reality, others interpret sign-acts as acts of power that function within a sociological context, and for still others sign-acts are merely communicative and persuasive, a form of street theater designed to obtain a hearing.

Friebel views a sign-act as “rhetorical nonverbal communication” that is communicative, interactive (persuasive), and informative. This view allows one to see the similarity between verbal and nonverbal prophetic communication. Both forms of communication “give advice, express conviction, indict” rather than “simply predict.” Friebel demonstrates splendidly that sign-acts do not refer only to future events but also to past and present events.

The prophetic sign-act in Zech. 11:4–16 does not refer necessarily to a future event. Our exegesis has demonstrated that it interprets the reality of the present, offering reasons for the demise of Zerubbabel. This prepares the ground for the chapters that follow, in which God appears as a judge and savior, offering cleansing and prompting repentance among the community and its leadership. As an interpretation of the present reality of the Persian period community, however, 11:4–16 will have ongoing implications for the Second Temple Jewish community. That this text is connected with the mission of Jesus in the New Testament shows us that the early Christian community treats it as foreshadowing a similar crisis or, better, as a later phase of the same crisis in their own day. As Zerubbabel was rejected, so also a member of his line would be rejected, but this rejection will precipitate the transformation of the world.

Intertextuality. A connection on a formal level to Ezekiel reveals the close relationship between Zechariah 11 and other prophetic books. Research on Zechariah 9–14 has consistently highlighted this trend, cataloguing the variety of ways in which these chapters not only draw on the earlier traditions of Israel but also earlier texts. This trend is foreshadowed in Zechariah’s preoccupation with the “earlier prophets” (1:4–6; 7:7), whose message he retransmits to a new generation (1:4; 7:9–10; 8:16–17).31 In contrast to chapters 1–8, chapters 9–14 do not introduce citations of earlier prophets or texts through explicit references, but they do allude to these texts by using identical words, images, and themes. A wealth of research now exists that not only catalogues the various texts to which chapters 9–14 allude, but also the various ways in which these texts are employed.

Both of these phases are important as one interprets texts like Zechariah 9–14. (1) It is essential to determine which earlier text was in the mind of the writer of the later text. This must be based on multiple aspects of the earlier passage, which should include both lexical stock (identical key words and phrases) and literary forms and themes. This is not always an easy task as Tom Wright has observed from his study of New Testament inner-biblical allusion:

When is an allusion not an allusion? This question forms a powerful undercurrent in a good deal of New Testament study. The historical question (was Paul, or whoever, alluding to a particular text, and if so why) is often intertwined with literary questions about authorial intention and the like; about these things, as the writer to the Hebrews says, we cannot now speak in detail. It is highly probable that writers in Second Temple Judaism alluded to a good many biblical texts, deliberately conjuring up a world of discourse with a word or phrase. It is also highly probable that readers in the twentieth century, alert for such allusions, will hear at least some where none were intended. It is absolutely certain that modern readers who are alert to this danger, and hence unwilling to allow any allusions beyond more or less direct quotations, will radically misread important texts. There are times when the historian needs reminding that history is an art, not a science.32

(2) This, however, is only the first step. It is equally important to compare the two texts to determine how a later writer uses the earlier text. Some examples of this include: echoing (arguing for its enduring validity in the present generation, e.g., Zech. 3:8–10; 6:9–15; cf. Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16), transforming (slightly changing its validity for the present generation), and reversing (rejecting its validity for the present generation, e.g., Hag. 2:20–23; cf. Jer. 22).33 This second step is not complete until one asks after the impact of this intertextual allusion on the reading of this passage in its final form.

This intertextual dimension has been compared to the ancient “palimpsests.”34 In an ancient world where writing materials were valuable and scarce, a scroll was recycled if needed. A scribe would scrape off the old markings and write his new text on the recycled page. Remnants of the old markings, however, often remain, and modern scholars have been able to reconstruct ancient texts from the remnants of these underlying marks. In some ways all literature functions like a “palimpsest”; that is, all writers draw from the cultural reservoir of past texts to create a new expression relevant to an emerging generation. Thus, as we read Zechariah 9–14, we can read “between the lines” earlier texts that affect our reading of the prophecy at hand.

Some have taken this intertextual dimension to an extreme by locating it in the mind of the reader; that is, intertextual connections are perceived by creative readers so that whether or not the writer “intended” this is irrelevant. In this case, the dating of literature is unnecessary since the connections are all placed on the same plane in the reader’s mind. Although it is true that intertextuality is part of the reading process, intertextuality in the Bible is different. It is based on the view that certain texts have inherent priority and authority over other texts, which explains why these texts were chosen for allusion.35 Therefore, one needs to bring both texts into view, identify the order of causality, and ask what the later text is doing with the earlier.

Some who have studied the intertextual character of Zechariah 9–14 have questioned the validity of these chapters as prophetic literature, contrasting it to the “living voice of prophecy.”36 This is stated succinctly by North when he writes:

Second Zechariah does not “act like a prophet” in the sense of making independent and original oracles of his own. Instead he seems concerned with gathering up expectations of earlier prophets and interpreting them or showing how they are to be fulfilled.37

Such comments reflect the enduring priority given in Christian interpretation to the original and oral declarations of named prophets. However, the prophecies of Zechariah 9–14 are creative and fresh declarations of God’s will for a particular community, even as they draw on earlier traditions and texts as a resource for these declarations.

Because of the intertextual character of much of Scripture, intertextuality has been exploited in recent discussions as important to the task of biblical theology. Elmer Martens charts the way ahead when he writes: “A consequence of using the method of intertextuality is to see the two testaments not as sharply discontinuous but as both part of a story with recurring patterns. The canon is interlaced in content but is interconnected also by similar patterning.”38

Zechariah 9–14, therefore, exists in intertextual relationship with much earlier material in the Old Testament, especially Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. At the same time, however, we must recognize that these chapters exist in an intertextual relationship with the New Testament, which, as we have argued in the commentary introduction (Bridging Contexts section), draws heavily from these chapters to trace Christ’s passion. The same intertextual techniques are evident in the New Testament as have been identified in Zechariah. At times there are explicit citations of Old Testament passages introduced by phrases such as “it is written.” At other times the connection is implicit, using similar motifs, narrative patterns, and vocabulary.

In our study of Zechariah 9–11 (esp. ch. 11), we have noted intertextual allusions to other passages in the Old Testament. But in light of the preceding discussion, it is important not only to highlight the links but also to allow them to shape our reading of the text at hand.39 For instance, with Ezekiel 34 and 37 as the backdrop to our reading of the sign-acts in Zechariah 11:4–16, we have been able to see this message in its historical and theological context as a statement concerning the failure of the Davidic line in the early Persian period. The sign-acts place the blame squarely on the shoulders of a community and its temple leaders, who are closely allied with the Persian authorities. The indictments of these leaders in 11:1–3 and 17, with their links to Jeremiah, create an expectation of the kind of discipline from God that the earlier prophets declared.

By drawing on these prophets, Zechariah 11 addressed serious problems in Yehud. The two smaller pieces in 11:1–3 and 17 announce judgment on leaders within the community. While the sign-act section of 11:4–16 enhances the depiction of worthless leaders, it also reveals that the community has rejected appropriate leadership and deserves the kind of leadership it has received. Both leadership and community are implicated here and both are threatened with discipline. This lays the foundation for chapters 12–14, which will reveal God’s cleansing of leadership and community, especially the final link in 13:7–9, in which the shepherd will be struck and the flock scattered, images of cleansing for leadership and community.

Redemptive history. In light of this Persian period message, it is not surprising that the New Testament draws on this section in its depiction of Jesus. The most famous verses in this chapter are 11:12–13, used by the Gospel writers in connection with Judas’s betrayal of Jesus (Matt. 26:14–16; 27:3–10; cf. Mark 14:10–11; Luke 22:1–6).40 But the link should not be limited to these two verses, for the Gospel writers have a much larger complex of events in mind.41 Christ uses shepherd imagery to depict his leadership of Israel (John 10:1–18). He came as the good shepherd with appropriate implements, just like the first shepherd of the sign-act. But the people reject him as their shepherd. The result of this rejection is well known in subsequent Jewish history as the Jewish shepherds lead the people to their demise in the climactic revolt against Rome in A.D. 68–70. Upon these shepherds comes the woe of Zechariah 11:17.

Therefore, it is essential to begin with a consideration of redemptive history prompted by intertextual connections between Zechariah 9–14 and the New Testament as we apply chapter 11 to the present day. The grandiose vision of blessing expressed in chapters 9–10 will be realized only through great upheaval within the community that will lead to rejection of good leadership, replacement with bad leadership, and judgment of that leadership. From a Christian perspective, this is fulfilled ultimately through the climactic events connected with and subsequent to the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. This text leads us as Christians to celebrate the work of God in and through Christ, who fulfilled Zechariah 11.

As Zechariah 11 echoes the pastoral vision of the book of Ezekiel with its expectation of a Davidic ruler who will rule appropriately, so the New Testament repeats this echo by depicting Christ as this kind of shepherd. Ultimately such leadership is fulfilled in Christ’s present leadership of the church from the right hand of the Father. This chapter is a comforting passage because it expresses the qualities of leadership we can expect from our good shepherd as this echo reverberates in our life experience today.

As our shepherd Christ promises to provide pasture and care for the weak. He is a loving shepherd, who shepherds with his staff Favor, acting graciously on their behalf. He is a caring shepherd, who shepherds with his staff Inheritance, providing for the needs of his sheep.

Leadership today. In light of these connections to Christ, is it appropriate to relate Zechariah 11 to leadership issues in the church today? The answer to this is a qualified yes. Since it is a leadership crisis that frustrated the realization of restoration in Zechariah 9–14, and if Christ’s leadership initiated restoration for the community of God, a restoration that is an enduring project for the church, then it is not too much to suggest that issues of leadership (and “followership”) are important to the realization of the mission of the church.

Contemporary Significance

WORSHIPING OUR SUFFERING SHEPHERD. Zechariah 11 was a key text for the early church’s understanding of Christ’s ministry. He was God’s shepherd, who set out to care for the flock, protecting them from poor shepherds and abusive owners. For thirty pieces of silver he was removed from his leadership, rejected by the flock (Jews), shepherds (priests), and owners (Romans). Yet God used this rejection to bring salvation for his flock. Christ’s death was followed by his resurrection and ascension, ushering in a new age for the remnant flock of Israel, the church.

As a foreshadowing of Christ’s work, Zechariah 11 stimulates praise of our Shepherd and his sacrifice for us. As we read this chapter, we catch a glimpse of the frustration and betrayal Christ experienced as he sought to lead a rebellious flock. We also catch a glimpse of God’s anger toward the rebellious and the power of Christ’s forgiveness of those who betrayed him.

As Christians we must return to this story of salvation on a consistent basis and allow it to inform and stimulate our faith and worship. A former pastoral associate of mine set aside time each Friday in his personal reflection to consider afresh the sacrifice of Christ. On a communal level, Christ designed the liturgical rhythm of the Lord’s Supper to remind us regularly of his suffering as our shepherd and to provide gracious nourishment for us as his sheep. This is also built into our yearly worship experience through a church calendar that marks the birth, death, and resurrection of our Savior.

Accepting comfort and discipline from our Shepherd. Christ came as the good shepherd who cares for his flock. He not only was willing to sacrifice his life for his sheep but also to offer an intimate relationship with them, as intimate as his own relationship with the Father: “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:14–15).

The pattern of his leadership established in the Gospels can be counted on by those who are members of this flock today. Zechariah 11 focuses particular attention on the concern of the good shepherd for the “oppressed,” those who in 11:16 are the “lost . . . young . . . injured.” God expected the royal leaders in ancient Israel to care for these kinds of sheep, an expectation assumed throughout Psalm 72 and linked to the longevity (“he will endure as long as the sun,” 72:5), extent (“he will rule from sea to sea,” 72:8), and quality (“let grain abound throughout the land,” 72:16) of his reign:

1Endow the king with your justice, O God,

the royal son with your righteousness.

2He will judge your people in righteousness,

your afflicted ones with justice.

3The mountains will bring prosperity to the people,

the hills the fruit of righteousness.

4He will defend the afflicted among the people

and save the children of the needy;

he will crush the oppressor. . . .

12For he will deliver the needy who cry out,

the afflicted who have no one to help.

13He will take pity on the weak and the needy

and save the needy from death.

14He will rescue them from oppression and violence,

for precious is their blood in his sight. (Psalm 72:1–4, 12–14)

It is refreshing to hear of the godly king’s concern for the weak and afflicted within his flock. Christ reflected this concern throughout his earthly ministry. His depiction of the good shepherd involves risking the entire flock for the sake of one lost sheep (Luke 15:3–7). In Luke 15, the lost sheep is equated with the “sinner,” in Matt. 10:6–8 with the sick and dying, leprous, and demon-possessed. These people were often on the outside, failures in the eyes of the Jewish community. But Christ as shepherd had deep compassion for these people.

Within our contemporary society, so enamoured with success, it is easy to deny our weaknesses and failures. This can even be fostered within the church with its penchant for testimonies that sound strikingly similar to the North American dream. One could easily get the impression that the church is a place for the strong and successful, those who have it all together. But Christ invited the weak into his flock, and because of that we must be honest with him about our fears, our weaknesses, our failures, rather than creating a veneer of successful thinking that can easily mask hypocrisy.

I once spoke with a young man who, disillusioned with his flourishing home church, began to attend a struggling church in the inner city. He told me that at this small inner-city church, people were free to express their pain and weakness in a corporate setting. I am finding this view of Christian community more prevalent within the emerging generation in the church. Attraction to Christ is not linked to promises of success or answers to questions but to honest stories of grace in the face of weakness.42 This latter approach seems closer to the message of Christ, because the good shepherd was one who invited the lost and weak.

Within the contemporary church it is also easy to limit our view of the lost and weak. It is evident in Zechariah 11 and especially in Psalm 72 that God’s leader was concerned about the economically oppressed. It is tempting to spiritualize this into those who are spiritually oppressed, that is, those in the clutches of Satan who are trapped in the kingdom of darkness. Although this is true and clearly Christ has come to release such captives from their bondage, we must not lose sight of oppression in all of its forms, even economic ones. Christ cares deeply for the poor, a fact emphasized by his consistent identification with them throughout his earthly ministry. The impact of his death and resurrection will be felt not only in the transformation of individual lives but also in the corporate experience of the societies in which they live. The good shepherd invites the poor to entrust themselves into his care.

This emphasis on the shepherd’s care for the weak should inform our vision of the church community and its mission. The community that bears his name will express his grace and acceptance. It will be a community in which the weak can find understanding, the oppressed can find justice, the afflicted can find refuge, and the hungry can find sustenance.

As his flock today we can entrust ourselves into the care of a shepherd who has known suffering and is sensitive to the needs of the afflicted (Heb. 4:14–16). Through his Spirit of comfort, Jesus not only consoles us but also sustains us through our affliction. But a shepherd will also discipline his sheep for their protection. Christ as caring shepherd cannot be separated from Christ as disciplining shepherd. The gracious care of the shepherd fosters the flock’s trust in him. Such trust is needed as he leads his flock through the landscape of their lives. The shepherd knows the path ahead and the sheep must be willing to follow his lead and accept his correction in order to safely arrive at green pastures and quiet waters.

As people saved through Christ’s sacrificial act and sustained by relationship with him through the Spirit, we invite the discipline and guidance he brings into our lives as Christians. This does not mean we always have a clear picture of the reasons that lie behind his guidance and discipline, but ultimately we are called to entrust ourselves into the hands of the good shepherd.

Leading the flock with integrity. Zechariah 11 addresses serious leadership issues in the Persian period community in Yehud and is useful for addressing similar concerns in God’s community today. Although Christ is the “Chief Shepherd” from whom leadership takes its lead and authority, leaders within the church are also addressed as “shepherds of God’s flock” (1 Peter 5:1–4; cf. John 21:15–19). Interestingly, the New Testament is concerned about issues like those mentioned in Zechariah 11, expressing concern both over internal motivations and attitudes and over the external actions and behavior of church leadership (1 Peter 5:2–3; cf. 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1).

Zechariah 11 reveals God’s disgust with poor leadership and his commitment to disciplining the “worthless shepherd.” It focuses most attention on the questionable motivations of leadership who mark the flock for slaughter (11:4), rejoice in material gain (11:5), and eat the choice sheep (11:16). In similar fashion, the New Testament forbids leadership motivated by lust for money or power (1 Peter 5:2–3). This does not mean that leaders should not discuss issues related to money or power, for God demands that the church care for their needs (1 Tim. 5:17–18) and has granted them appropriate authority (1 Peter 5:2, 5), but this must not constitute the motivation for leadership.

One of the priorities of church leadership, whether clergy or laity, must be honest examination of motivations. Self-examination at regular intervals throughout the year provides an opportunity for reflection on one’s motivation. But one should seek the help of the community here. One’s spouse is often the best source for honest evaluation of motivation, though this level of vulnerability can be intimidating and needs to be approached with humility and openness. Church leaders must develop relationships with wise mentors and honest colleagues who can speak to sensitive issues in their lives. In all of this there is great vulnerability, but the leader who invites honest examination displays strength, not weakness, and secures long-term vitality in ministry.

One mentor I had in my life was a pastor who would invite his district superintendent (a pastor over many pastors) to visit his elders’ meeting on a yearly basis in order to conduct a review of his ministry. This was an important opportunity in the year for evaluation of his internal motivation and external performance, which afforded this wise pastor the opportunity to grow well into the later years of his ministry.

Another aspect of leadership attacked in Zechariah 11 is that of inappropriate liaisons with foreign nations, that is, leadership that operated under the authority of foreign oppressors (11:1–3) and because of this abused the flock (11:4–16). For those living under the hegemony of the nations there was a constant temptation to capitulate to these foreign powers and follow their patterns of abuse. This pattern, however, is rejected by God, who judges such shepherds (11:17). In light of this, all leaders are challenged to live according to patterns of leadership established by God and not to succumb to the patterns of a secular world.

I have seen one church establish certain patterns among their leadership teams that keep their focus on the Lord and encourage reliance on God for their ministry. Each time a leadership team meets, the members spend the first hour of the meeting in prayer for the church, its members, and its ministries. This is true for committees that are “spiritual” leaders of the church as well as for those whose focus is on care of the physical needs of the church building. By doing this they are reminded that this ministry is one that relies on God, not humans, for its prosperity. It discourages unhealthy reliance on secular leadership techniques alone at the expense of the power and wisdom of the Spirit.

Another way to risk reliance on the world is in our unthinking affirmation of political decisions that have been made by our governments, whether in the domestic or international context. In this scenario the “nations” are our own political bodies for which we have the choice as individuals and communities of faith to support or confront. The church must take its responsibility to be salt and light in the midst of our present generation and ensure that it is reflecting deeply about ways that our societies may be contributing to suffering at home and abroad. Often we affirm injustice by our passivity and failure to speak out even when we know there is abuse. At other times we affirm injustice by our activity, embracing economic systems and encouraging political parties whose value systems do not reflect the compassion of Christ. In such cases we must repent, break liaisons with such sources of abuse, and work actively to become agents of transformation within our communities and nations.

Following the shepherd in obedience. Zechariah 11 not only addresses leaders, it confronts a community that will not submit to good leadership, rebelling against God’s provision of a caring shepherd. In similar fashion to the Israelites of old, who demanded a king like the other nations, God granted them the desire of their hearts, which led to disaster. The success of God’s community not only depends on godly leaders but also on godly followers. Although the good shepherd in Zechariah 11 pastured this flock with the appropriate implements and gave due attention to the oppressed of the flock, this flock “detested” the shepherd.

There is no question that in the church today there are times when leaders need to be confronted and even removed from their place of authority. But sometimes it is the flock that needs confrontation, for they have fallen into the habit of using well-worn paths that endanger the life of the community and do not lead to green pastures and quiet waters.

I remember one church I pastored for a short period, filling in for the pastor who needed a vacation. I was slated to preach for four Sundays during his absence. After my third sermon I received an anonymous note from a parishioner upset about my interpretation of Scripture. Understandably, as a young leader I was shaken by the note and impatiently awaited the return of the pastor. At our first private moment after his arrival, I showed him the note. He smiled and then led me to his filing cabinet, where he pulled out a file of letters in the same handwriting. He explained that this person had written him letters regularly throughout his few years at the church, complaining about various issues. This individual had been responsible for the removal of nearly every pastor who had served in the church over the past couple of decades. This was an important reminder to a young pastor that the success of God’s community is dependent on leader and follower alike. Leaders need to guide the community with wisdom and integrity, but the community needs to follow their shepherds in submission and obedience.

How can the flock of Christ do this within their churches? I think it involves the development of the character of humility. One will never learn to lead if he or she has never learned the humility of following. Humility, however, does not imply passivity. Often leaders mistake a lack of resistance to vision and mission as a sign of successful leading and following. However, such passivity can merely mask a disengagement from the vision. The hope is passionate engagement with God’s vision for the church.

Original Meaning

Prophetic Sign-Act of Shepherd and Sheep (11:4–16)

VERSE 4 SIGNALS a transition to a new section.10 This section constitutes a prophetic sign-act, a form also encountered in 3:1–10 and 6:9–15.11 This form typically consists of three sections: exhortation (God commands an action), execution (the prophet describes his compliance), explanation (God interprets its significance). Although the exhortation is always the first element, the order and presence of the other two can vary (cf. Jer. 13:1–11; Ezek. 5).

In this section three sign-acts can be discerned, each introduced by an exhortation (Zech. 11:4, 13, 15). The first sign-act (11:4–12, 14) contains an exhortation (vv. 4–5), explanation (v. 6), and execution (vv. 7–12, 14). The execution of the first sign-act is interrupted momentarily by the second sign-act (11:13), which contains only an exhortation (v. 13a) and an execution (v. 13b). The third sign-act consists of an exhortation (v. 15) and an explanation (v. 16). Because the second sign-act is incorporated into the execution section of the first, the resulting structure indicates two basic reports, one depicting a good and the other a foolish shepherd.

As with all sign-acts, Zech. 11:4 begins with an exhortation from God. The phrase “my God” probably emphasizes the intimate relationship between the prophet and God (e.g., Ps. 143:10; 145:1).12 This exhortation places the prophet in the role of shepherd. Since prophets are not usually associated with shepherding, it is best to understand this as the prophet assuming the role of shepherd in a sign-act, representing God’s appointed leadership of his people.

The flock is one “marked for slaughter,” that is, a flock destined for complete destruction. This word “slaughter” is restricted elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to Jeremiah, when he speaks of the destruction of the city of Jerusalem as he preaches against idolatrous practices connected with the temple (Jer. 7:32; 19:6). Such an allusion threatens a recurrence of Jeremiah’s earlier judgment of Jerusalem.

Although sheep were raised for food in Israel, this purpose is not part of the positive form of this metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. Good shepherds are those who protect their sheep from destruction while bad shepherds neglect their duties by not caring for the injuries of the sheep and allowing them to be eaten (see further below).

While verse 4 introduces us to the shepherd, verse 5 expands the scene to include buyers, sellers, and shepherds. The terms “buyers” and “those who sell” suggest the marketplace, where ownership is transferred. The buyers are not interested in raising or caring for a flock, but rather in acquiring the sheep to slaughter for food, while the motivation of the sellers is clearly the monetary reward: “Praise the LORD, I am rich!” Although this imagery may only be contributing to the shepherding metaphor, it may indicate the reality to which the sign-act points: economic oppression within the community. The shepherds, hired and paid by these buyers and sellers, stand by and abandon their responsibility of protecting the flock.

Verse 6 represents the explanation of the sign-act. It is directed at the people as much as at their leaders, a focus that can also be discerned in verse 8, when the flock detests the shepherding of God’s appointed leader. As their “shepherds” do not show pity (v. 5), so God will not show pity or rescue them from the oppressive hands of “neighbor” and “king.” These two terms reveal both vertical and horizontal oppression: abuse from those who live next to them as well as from those who rule over them. That this judgment originates with God is understandable in light of the refusal of this community to follow his appointed leader (v. 8).

Although the details remain fuzzy, the historical evidence of the early Persian period confirms the depiction and judgment described in verse 6. In Zechariah 7–8 the prophet links the Persian period community to the oppressive practices of Jeremiah’s time and calls them to social justice (see 7:8–10; 8:16–17). The horizontal anarchy suggested in chapter 11 is described in 8:10: “No one could go about his business safely because of his enemy, for I had turned every man against his neighbor.” In a slightly later period, Nehemiah confronted oppression within his community on both horizontal (Neh. 5:1) and vertical (5:15) levels.13

The execution of the sign-act, signaled by the switch to autobiographical style, follows in Zech. 11:7–14. The concern of God’s appointed shepherd for the “oppressed of the flock” is indicative of good leadership, and most likely good royal leadership since the monarchy was commissioned to care for the “oppressed” (Ps. 72:2, 4, 12; NIV “afflicted”).

The positive intention of this shepherd is confirmed by the fact that he takes two staffs, called “Favor” and “Union” (Zech. 11:7), suggesting the two shepherding implements (“rod and staff,” Ps. 23:4) that guided and protected the sheep.14 The oddity here is that these implements are given names by the shepherd. This feature highlights the close association between this sign-act and that of Ezekiel in Ezekiel 37:13–23, where he takes two sticks and writes names on them.

The word “Favor” (noʿam) is used of God’s person (NIV “beauty” in Ps. 27:4) and is linked to divine blessing (90:17) and wisdom (Prov. 3:17). Later in the execution of the sign-act the breaking of this staff is connected to the breaking of the covenant made “with all the nations.” In light of the use of the same phrase in Zechariah 12–14 to refer to all the nations of the earth (Zech. 12:6; 14:12), this reference to a covenant with the nations likely refers to God’s manipulation of the nations to bring blessing on Israel, especially as seen in the Persian period with the restoration of the community in Yehud.

The word “Union” is related to the Hebrew root ḥbl, which describes the giving of an item in pledge in both verbal (Ex. 22:25; Deut. 24:6, 17; Job 22:6; 24:3; Prov. 20:16; 27:13) and nominal forms (Ezek. 18:12; 33:15) and is also used in connection with the distribution of the land to the various tribes (Josh. 17:5, 14; 19:9; Ezek. 47:13). Later in the execution of the sign-act, this staff is linked to “breaking the brotherhood between Judah and Israel,” an act that affects the issue of the inheritance of the land. Therefore, it is appropriate to translate this term as “Inheritance,” referring to the redistribution of the land during the restoration from exile.

Although the shepherd has been appointed to care for the flock, he is not alone in this task, for he joins other shepherds already mentioned in Zech. 11:5, who have been hired by the buyers and sellers. Verse 8 signals the beginning of trouble for God’s appointed shepherd. He must rid the flock of the uncaring shepherds of 11:5, an action that elsewhere refers to physical annihilation (cf. Ex. 23:23; Ps. 83:5). This does not, however, mean a literal event in which God’s appointed leader killed other leaders, because the genre used is the “sign-act.” This is why the identities of these three shepherds has eluded the historical grasp of scholars.15 The number three is symbolic of a complete purging of leadership, and the time period of “one month” indicates a short period of time.

The removal of these shepherds appears to cause tension between the flock and the shepherd as the shepherd “grew weary,” a phrase used elsewhere to refer to an inability to endure a situation (Num. 21:4; Job 21:4; Judg. 10:16; 16:16), and the flock “detested” their shepherd. This mutual rejection has serious repercussions. The tension is heightened by the switch to dramatic narrative to describe the resignation of the good shepherd, tension intensified further as the shepherd spells out in detail the ramifications of his decision. Abandoning the flock will result in the death of the weak ones and the mutual destruction of those who remain. This “eating one another’s flesh” (lit., “each will eat the flesh of his neighbor”) alludes back to God’s explanation in Zechariah 11:6, where everyone is handed over to his neighbor.

The notice of the shepherd’s departure is followed by two symbolic gestures linked to the staffs. (1) Breaking the staff called Favor (11:10), which is linked to his relationship with the nations (the buyers/sellers of v. 5), spells disaster for the flock since this staff represented blessing as well as protection from the hungry buyers/sellers. The comment in verse 11 appears to be a side note bolstering the prophetic word and its implications for the vulnerable.16

Before reporting the breaking of the second staff in 11:14, the prophet reports his request for payment of wages. The “them” of verse 12 most likely refers to the “nations” of verse 10, who are the buyers of verse 5. Having terminated his contract with these nations, the shepherd now requests his wages, but he gives them the option of refusal since he has broken the agreement. The amount of payment is “thirty pieces of silver,” a measure that is “weighed out” (NIV “paid”), a regular practice in the early Persian period when coinage was not in general use.17 The low amount of payment indicates disapproval of the shepherd’s efforts.18

Having received his wages, the prophet quickly reports a second sign-act (Zech. 11:13). God instructs the shepherd to throw the payment to the “potter,” who, according to the execution of this sign-act, is in “the house of the LORD.” The Hebrew word hayyoṣer is used for those who work with clay as well as metals (Isa. 44:9, 10, 12; Hab. 2:18).19 Most likely here it refers to the latter—that is, those responsible to smelt coins and precious metals for the temple—but whether “potter” or “smelter,” there is no question that the destination of this silver is the temple. The action of throwing implicates temple personnel in the payment. The tone here is one of strong rejection of payment, highlighting the broken relationship with the nations. With this payment, the first symbolic gesture is completed, signaling an end to the covenant with the nations.

(2) In a second symbolic gesture, the shepherd breaks the staff called “Union” (or, better, “Inheritance”; Zech. 11:14), an action that, as we have already discussed, represents the shattering of the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. This action represents a reversal of Ezekiel’s action in Ezekiel 37, in which the earlier prophet unites two sticks, representing the northern and southern tribes, and dashes hopes of an immediate restoration of the united kingdom, as reflected in Zechariah 9–10.

Verse 15 introduces the final sign-act, where the Lord instructs the prophet to “take the equipment of a foolish shepherd.” This equipment is not related necessarily to the staffs already discussed in the first sign-act, since the word “again” does not modify the imperative “take” but the introductory statement (“Then the LORD said to me again”).20 The shepherd’s “equipment” (keli) means at least a rod and staff (Ps. 23:4).21 Unlike the shepherd of the first sign-act, whose intention was to care for the sheep, this shepherd is “foolish” (ʾewili), a pejorative term marking this final shepherd as corrupt morally (Ps. 107:17), rejecting the fear of the Lord (Prov. 1:7) and counsel (12:15; 15:5) while refusing to make amends for sin (14:9).

The folly of this shepherd is detailed in the explanation that follows in verse 16. The prophet highlights the various types of sheep within the flock. The first three clearly indicate the vulnerable members of the flock: “lost . . . young . . . injured,” while the fourth category (NIV “healthy”) probably refers to “exhausted ones.”22 In stark contrast to the good shepherd, who protected the vulnerable in the flock (11:7), the foolish shepherd will not only neglect these members of the flock but also turn on the remaining sheep and devour all edible meat.

The situation has become even worse than at the outset. Whereas the shepherds in 11:5 were only guilty of denying the flock protection from ravenous owners, now the shepherd himself is consuming his own flock, echoing Ezekiel’s description of the “shepherds of Israel” (Ezek. 34:3–4).23 These verses are obviously prophesying a return to the conditions that led to exile.

Ezekiel contrasts this dark portrait of the shepherds with that of God’s compassionate care for his flock in Ezekiel 34:16, transforming the vocabulary from negative to positive actions. In Zechariah 11:15–16, however, God is the One who has raised up this foolish shepherd over the land. This is the fulfillment of the second warning in verse 6, that God will “hand everyone over to . . . his king” (cf. 11:9 for the fulfillment of the first warning).

The sign-acts in 11:4–16 describe two leaders within the community. The first one is appointed by God, sensitive to his people and equipped with tools appropriate for his task. Tension between leader and people lead to termination of his agreement with the nations and hope of renewal of the united kingdom and his replacement by a second divinely appointed leader, who is foolish because of his irresponsibility and exploitation.

It is difficult to ascertain the precise historical referent of this sign-act report. However, the commentary above has revealed unambiguous links with Ezekiel 34 and 37, two passages that offer a future Davidic ruler as the solution for the coming united kingdom. This suggests that the prophetic sign-act here is referring to the work of a Davidide who was rejected by both people and empire and replaced by another individual.

Such Davidic hope is expressed elsewhere in this book, particularly in Zechariah 3 and 6:9–15.24 In these contexts in addresses to priestly figures, Zechariah emphasizes Jeremiah’s hope for the Davidic ṣemaḥ figure and carefully delineates the role that priestly, royal, and prophetic figures will play in the restoration community. This suggests that the priestly caste may have been vying for responsibilities that were reserved for the royal house. In these contexts Zerubbabel appears to be the focus of Davidic hope. In light of this evidence from Zechariah 1–8 and of the history of the early Persian period, this passage most likely describes the ultimate fate of Zerubbabel, the last Davidic male to participate in the leadership of Yehud.25