I generally steer away from any
detailed analysis of Old Testament prophetic texts because so much of
their interpretation depends on individual scholars' predisposition
and theological stance. Thus, theological skeptics found in many
mainstream Protestant denominations hold to the belief that there can
be no such thing as true biblical prophecy. Therefore if an OT
prophecy appears to have actually come true later on, that is good
evidence that the passage was written after the fact. And on the
other extreme are those fundamentalist scholars, especially of the dispensational persuasion, who will deny that many of the OT
prophecies were fulfilled by the first coming of Christ even if the
NT writers quote those prophecies in that context, unless there is a
word-for-word literal fulfillment. If not, then they will simply
state that many OT prophecies have partial fulfillment during
Christ's life on earth, with more literal fulfillment yet to come in
the last days.
In the middle of these two extreme
viewpoints are a vast number of intellectually honest scholarly
commentators from various denominations who attempt to make the best
sense out of OT prophecies by (1) not demanding that the fulfillment rigidly adhere to a literal meaning, (2) being strongly guided in
their judgment by what the NT texts have to say regarding the
subject, and (3) denying the dispensational notion that God's main
plan on earth is for the Jewish people only, with the Gentiles taking
a purely supporting and minor role. The first presupposition makes
good sense since one must remember that most OT prophetic passages
are found in a poetic context where one would generally not expect
literal language to be employed. And the second assumption appears to
make the best sense out of the way the NT authors treat Christ's
coming and death as having already fulfilled much of what the OT
predicted. Lastly, there is much to be said for the view that the
emphasis of some, but not all, dispensationalist scholars on the
ethnic Jews to the subservience of the Gentile population borders on
the heretical.
Complicating this whole issue is
another factor brought up by Childs: “The inability to reach a
consensus on the dating of the book has left unresolved the
historical context for interpretation. As a result, few Old Testament
books reflect such a chaos of conflicting interpretations.”
With all that background, it becomes
obvious that it is almost impossible for me to present an impartial,
complete, and systematic treatment of what all sides have to say
regarding any large chunk of OT prophecy, but I will give it a try
with the tenth chapter of Zechariah as an example. And to sort out
the players somewhat, I have labelled each person's comment as best I
could with their general prophetic stance as either liberal (L),
scholarly evangelical/conservative (E), or
dispensational/fundamentalist (F). The “E” category includes a
hodgepodge of historical premillennialists, amillennialists and other
scholars who have no particular prior theological axe to grind. But
these divisions should not be taken too seriously since, as you may
see below, there is a great deal of overlap between these three
categories.
To start with, you will not find it
uncommon in commentaries of a more liberal nature (such as that of
Redditt) to spend the majority of their words reviewing all the
generally contradictory theories propounded to explain OT prophecy
books as works in progress to which a number of ancient writers
contributed, continually update earlier predictions in order to bring
them in line with the latest historical events. In other words, to
change the predictions so that they better matched what really
happened later on. Thus, Redditt feels he has identified four
original sources pieced together by a later editor (called a redactor
in scholarly terms) in order to produce chapters 9-14 of Zechariah as
we have them today. If this view is correct then of course such
“prophecy after the fact” is actually no meaningful prophecy at
all, and we are totally wasting our time trying to look for any
future fulfillment.
Chisholm (F) demonstrates graphically
how Chapter 10 relates to the previous chapter in a reverse manner:
1. The Lord delivers the exiles
(9:11-12)
2. The Lord energizes Judah and
Ephraim for battle (9:13-15)
3. The Lord shepherds and blesses
his people (9:16-17)
4. Blessing is offered in the
present (10:1)
3'. The Lord shepherds and blesses
his people (10:2-3b)
2'. The Lord energizes Judah and
Ephraim for battle (10:3c-7)
1'. The Lord delivers the exiles
(10:8-11:3)
It is of interest that Bullock, also coming
from a dispensational background, endorses the slightly different
symmetrical arrangement of Joyce Baldwin:
1. Arrival of the king (9:9-10)
2. Jubilation and prosperity
(9:11-10:1)
3. Rebuke for sham leaders (10:2-3a)
2'. Jubilation and prosperity
(10:3b-11:3)
1'. The fate of the good shepherd
(11:4-17)
Despite the obvious differences between
these two schemes, they do seem to go a long way toward showing that
not all prophetic passages in the Bible are given in a strictly
chronological order, a fact which some fundamentalists are still
reluctant to accept.
Zechariah 10:1-5 “The
form of this short pericope [i.e. vv. 1-2] is that of a Mahnwort
(admonition). The writer returns from his look at the eschatological
future salvation, to the present evil age...The prophet here
admonishes his hearers to ask rain of Yahweh, who controls the
clouds, and not from the terephim. A further warning is given in v. 2
against diviners and dreamers who speak falsely...The pericope ends
with an observation that the people wander aimlessly because they
have no shepherd to guide them in the right path...The setting may be
a prophetic admonition during the New Year festival about 500 B.C.”
(Smith) (E)
“After an initial exhortation to seek
prosperity, not from deceitful diviners, but only from the Lord (Zech
10:1-2), the Lord himself speaks words of judgment against Israel's
faithless leaders (shepherds), but words of promise to the people
(flock) themselves. In an arresting image, he says that he will
transform this flock into his magnificent warhorse and will lead them
to victory over their enemies (Zech 10:3). He also makes the
remarkable promise that he will bring back from foreign lands not
only the exiles of Judah, but also those of the erstwhile northern
kingdom...who had been deported by the Assyrians some two centuries
earlier. In another enigmatic passage with messianic overtones (Zech
10:4), he states that out of Judah will come the cornerstone, the
peg, the battle bow and 'every ruler together.'” (Wolter) (E)
“Dissatisfied with the incompetent
leaders he appointed over his people, the Lord himself would assume
the position of Judah's shepherd (10:3b). He would transform Judah
into a mighty military force, compared here to a warhorse (3c). The
Lord's power would give Judah stability and enable them to defeat
their enemies (vv. 4-5).” (Chisholm) (F)
“Both OT [including Zechariah 10:2-3]
and later Jewish literature are replete with references to leaders
who fail to perform their God-given responsibilities and as a result
render their charge vulnerable to attack.” (Kostenberger) (E)
The evangelical scholar Mark Boda
expends roughly forty pages of his detailed commentary on Zechariah
just on chapter 10. He sticks strictly to what Zechariah is
presenting without additional speculations.
It is absolutely impossible to
adequately summarize the almost 60 pages Meyers and Meyers (L) devote
to this one chapter of Zechariah, so a few random comments by them
will have to suffice. They feel that “the last verse of chapter 9
presents a condition that will be the result of what is described in
verse 1 of chapter 10. In a sense, the two verses dovetail, because
10:1 sets forth the conditions – ample and appropriately timed
rainfall – that produce the fertility described in 9:17 as well as
at the end of 10:1. Not only does the first verse of this chapter
provide a link with the previous one, but its first words – 'Ask of
Yahweh' – also constitute an anticipation, by way of contrast with
the next verse (10:2) of this chapter...This exhortation to ask
Yahweh for the conditions of material well-being initiates a chapter
containing literary and thematic forms that have aroused much
scholarly discussion...At this point, we simply indicate their views,
each of which have merit, are not necessarily antithetical; many
elements of both perspectives help our understanding of this complex
chapter.”
Although Meyers and Meyers were
specifically talking of two particular Bible scholars when they made
that last comment, it really holds true for all the somewhat
competing interpretations one may encounter. In fact, most of the
scholars I quote in this post tend to supplement one another to give
us a fuller picture of what Zechariah has to say. The exceptions are
those arch-liberal writers who concentrate only on the prior sources
that supposedly make up our present text while the fundamentalists
often care about nothing but when and exactly how the predictions
will eventually take place. In my mind, this attention to the distant
past or the uncertain future leaves the average reader in the dark
concerning the actual importance of the verses for the here and now.
Zechariah 10:6-12
“Through the OT prophets.., God promised both before the exile and
after the initial return from exile, that he would regather his
exiled people and reconstruct the twelve tribes (Zech. 10:6-12, etc.)
– promises that lived on in later Judaism...Jesus himself links his
choice of twelve apostles to the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt.
19:38; cf. Luke 22:30), and the last book of the Bible pictures the
people of God in the last days as the sum of twelve thousands drawn
from each of the twelve tribes. These themes prove to be enormously
evocative, and debates rage over (1) the extent to which these
references to the twelve tribes refer to empirical, racial Israel or
in typological fashion, to the eschatological Israel of the new
covenant; (2) the extent to which the years of exile ended with
Cyrus's decree or continued until the time of Jesus as the Davidic
king introduced the long-promised kingdom, or continue yet until the
consummation...” (Carson) (E)
Smith (E) summarizes the material in
these verses as follows: The section [defined by him as vv. 3-12]
consists of both the words of God (vv 3a, 6, and 8-10) and the words
of the prophet (vv 3b-5, 7, 11-12). “The pericope opens with the
words of Yahweh announcing this judgment against the shepherds
(whoever they are). This seems to be eschatological language. Yahweh
will judge the unjust rulers because he cares for his flock, the
house of Judah. From Judah will come reliable leaders: a cornerstone,
a tent-peg, a battle-bow, and a beneficent overseer (v 4).”
“Messiah will regather all Israel
(10:6-10) The worldwide scope of this prophecy relating to both
Israel and Judah and God's activity on behalf of His Chosen People
indicate that the final regathering of Israel just before the Second
Advent of the Messiah is in view.” (Lindsey) (F)
“God...defends Jerusalem, to which
her king comes in triumph bringing peace among all nations (vv.
9-10), words later quoted in the New Testament and used of the
triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:1-9)...So much is
obscure in these chapters that interpretation of them can be only
tentative. The view that they came from a sharply eschatological
party that found itself increasingly at odds with the official
priesthood and Temple, and so looked for a more and more radical
intervention of God, would account for much that is here.” (Mason)
(L)
“Assyria and Egypt here represent
oppressors in general. Gilead was the first territory to be conquered
after the Exodus, cf. Is 40:3+” (Brown on v. 10) (E)
Zechariah 10:11-12 “In regathering
Israel to the land, God will remove every obstacle to restoration,
pictured in terms of the ancient deliverance when He brought Israel
through the sea on dry land. Again Assyria and Egypt were mentioned
to represent all Israel's enemies (cf. v. 10).” (Lindsey) (F)
“The lesser role of Gentiles in the
millennium is the subject of many Old Testament Scriptures such as
the following: (...Zechariah 10:11-12).” (Walvoord) (F)
“The OT prophesies that this judgment
[of Babylon] would include the drying up of the Euphrates River (Isa.
11:15; 44:27; Jer. 50:38; 51:36; cf. Zech. 10:11). The prophecy was
fulfilled by Cyrus's diversion of the river (cf. Isa. 44:27-28),
which allowed his army to cross the river, enter Babylon unexpectedly
and defeat it (Herodotus 1.190-91...)...The victory by Cyrus led to
Israel's release from captivity (Isa. 44:26-28; 45:13).” (Beale)
(E)
Carson (E) agrees with Beale concerning
the fulfillment of this prophecy.
In conclusion, it is interesting to
compare the above with the historical premillennial analysis of
Zechariah 10 by Payne (F) as he attempts to parse out the various
verses found in that chapter according to the most likely times of
fulfillment, either during the Old Testament period (O), New
Testament (N), or yet future (Ft). Below is a summary of his
analyses:
10:3, false leaders fall (O)
10:8a, redemption won (N)
10:8b, others gathered, increase
(church?) (N)
10:9, believers live, though scattered
(N)
10:10, the church will be raptured and
brought with Christ to Palestine (Ft)
10:11a, rivers dry up (Rev 16:12) (Ft)
10:11b, world powers are brought down
(Ft)
10:12, the saints rule (Rev 2:26) (Ft)
As you can see, he appears to take
Zechariah 10 as a more or less chronological presentation, a stance
with which not all scholars would agree as can be seen in the more
literary and topical arrangements shown above.