Commentary by Lee Bright, version 0.3 on:
Asimov, Isaac and Palacios, Rafael (1981) Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Wings Books: NY.
The book begins with an overview vision (1:7-2:13) that sets the table for some of the meatiest messianic and end-time prophecies in the Bible. These images are often quoted in the New Testament Gospels and the book of Revelation. Each vision sequence is dated with month and year until the ninth chapter. The prophet Zechariah overlaps Haggai by only one month in 520 BC (Baldwin 1973, pg. 29).
Because the overview vision is meant for encouragement, it only spells out the good things that will happen to the Hebrews in the land. That makes this vision useful for us who don't know our world history. We can just focus on the good things in history.
English translations of passages like this are often confusing because of the tradition of translating the words Adonai as 'lord' and Yahweh as 'LORD'. This is all the more confusing in this overview vision because there are at least two angels speaking and three different designations of God, each with its own attributes. To spell it out:
The vision is from the LORD (ie. Yahweh), therefore, "the word of the LORD came to Zechariah."
An angel (ie. malach, messenger) accompanies Zechariah throughout the visions and is occasionally addressed as lord (ie. Adonai).
The man on the red horse is the Angel of the LORD, which is a personification of the Logos (ie. the Word). Therefore, the angel will speak as the LORD in the first-person point of view.
The LORD of Hosts (NIV: LORD Almighty) is synonymous with God the Father of Christianity. He is addressed by the Angel of the LORD and responds through the angel accompanying Zechariah. The LORD of Hosts is otherwise referenced in the third person point of view.
There is a question/problem with the beginning of 2:8. Most translations have "the LORD of Hosts says," followed by an oracle, but the first person logic of these verses (8-13, especially v. 9) seems to require "the LORD", the "Angel of the LORD", or at least the angel speaking on his own behalf. The one Dead Sea Scroll fragment has "The LORD of Hosts" - like the traditional text - and there are relatively few variant readings of Zechariah.
I take it that either the "LORD of Hosts" is marking the end of the parallel verses 6 and 7 (which the Masoretic punctuation does not agree with), or it should be taken as the more freely translated New Living Translation (NLT). Regardless, whatever way we slice, this is a Trinitarian moment.
The book of Zechariah is part of the Septuagint completed by 132 BC and attested in parts in 5 of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which puts its writing securely before Christianity. Because the fulfillment of many of Zechariah's prophecies will extend beyond anything a redactor could have modified, chapter 2 onward puts a particular strain on those who see it as a created rather than a received text. This strain heavily colors how Asimov and his chosen commentators view the text. They must come up with something or concede the prophecy as true.
Looking at chapter 3, Asimov has admitted that Joshua is a symbol of the Jewish nation in the vision. That means the actual Joshua wasn't there, present, but off doing something else such as eating or sleeping, probably unaware of what was occurring to Zechariah. The vision Zechariah is having is like a play on a stage, complete with props and actors playing their parts. All visions are like this because It is not possible for mankind to know God as He is. We can only know God by analogy to (or negation of) what is more familiar.
An actor in this vision/play is "the accuser," often left untranslated as a proper name - Satan. Before the accuser has a chance to accuse Joshua, he is rebuked by the Angel of the LORD. Asimov sees in this a heavy hint of Persian dualism, but Persian dualism would require some sort of actual evil power capable of putting up a fight with God. Here, the accuser is a subordinate. His accusations are a just audit. There is a rebuke, but no opposition. This is a story of redemption.
As the people's infatuation with angels increased into New Testament times, there is more reason to cite Persian influences. Here, Asimov is premature. This matters because it is this same perceived Persian influence that he uses to date the writing of the book of Job after Zechariah, whereas this author sees the reverse. The accuser is in Zechariah's vision because he has heard Job along with Psalms 109 (esp. v. 6).
Asimov quotes verse 3:8 but in the ellipsis cuts off the most important part:
Now listen, Joshua the High Priest, you and your friends [NIV: associates ] who are sitting in front of you—indeed they are men who are a symbol, for behold, I am going to bring in My servant the Branch.
This sets up a typology. Those associated with Joshua - ritually clean and anointed to work on or in the temple - will corporately prefigure an event that has to do with the coming Branch. While Joshua is the figurehead of the whole group, the second most notable person in that group is Zerubbabel, a royal descendant of David and governor of Jerusalem.
If it wasn't clear before, 6:11-13 shows that the Joshua corporation prefigures the Branch. The Branch even takes the name Joshua (ie.Jeshua, Jesus, "Yahweh saves"). What they accomplish corporately symbolically prefigures what the Branch will accomplish on His own.
Take silver and gold, make an ornate crown [KJV: crowns] and set it on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Then say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the Lord. Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the Lord, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”’
In verse 11, 'Crowns' instead of NASB's 'ornate crown' is more likely. Therefore, the idea was to "crown him with many crowns" and fits with 2:10 of the overview vision:
“Many nations will join themselves to the LORD in that day and will become My people."
Even if we ignore verse 2:10 and grant Asimov's conjecture that the passage originally referenced Zerubbabel instead of or in addition to Joshua, it makes no difference in the message. The Branch clearly refers to a future person. Joshua and Zerubbabel are in 519 BC just starting work on the temple. The crowns will be stored in the temple as a reminder (6:14) and clearly portend the coming of the Angel of the LORD (6:15). Ironically enough, if the peaceful (v. 4:6) Zerubbabel was cut down because of messianic expectations, this makes the prophecy even more specific!
Asimov's conjecture will only work if massive changes are made to the text in:
Since there are no textual reasons for making these changes (beyond academic arrogance), it is hard not to see Asimov's conjecture as mere prejudice. Asimov and his selected scholars must believe the text has been modified in order to fit within their 'secular' worldview. Otherwise, as it stands the text has continuity with the New Testament and makes specific messianic predictions that Jesus and his future followers clearly fulfill.
From chapter 9 on, the oracles are not dated and there is a distinct style change which many have interpreted as a different author(s) (see Asimovian Documentary Hypothesis). However, even many of those who doubt single authorship for the book recognize there are many 'Zechariahisms' in the text and so talk about a "protege of Zechariah." (Baldwin 1972) It is generally recognized that the entire book is arranged in a recognizable chiastic pattern rather than chronologically, but this could be the work of the compiler of the text rather than Zechariah.
The authorship is really of no consequence. Believers can take it either way. As Asimov points out in a roundabout way, those who see it as a created rather than received text must believe chapter 9 to be written well after Alexander's campaign through Syria, Phoenicia, and Gaza (333 BC to 332 BC). Since this prophecy points back to the overview vision (1:18-21 to 2:6-9), by using the same logic the first part of Zechariah must have been written around the same time.
Verses 9:8-10 are reassuring that war will not be the fate of Jerusalem during Alexander's campaign and the Messiah will come humbly with an international message of peace, pointing back to ideas and specific language in 2:1-5 and 2:10-11.
One of the key themes of the first 8 chapters of Zechariah is to be an encouragement to those building the temple by showing the cosmic significance of their task. In consequence, the text is grounded in the present and looking towards the future, but fairly self-contained.
Chapters 9-11 and 12-14 are two separate oracles that have much to say about the efficacy of the Messiah, but hardly anything to say about the temple. They are totally future-oriented, bring in references from a variety of other sources, written as poetry, and are free to say all the bad things that will happen to the Hebrews and the land. This may make these oracles bizarre, but they are still connected to the overview vision from the beginning of Zechariah.
Up to this point, the Messiah has been presented as one that will draw many nations to Himself, but nothing has been said about how the Messiah impacts the Hebrews specifically until 9:11:
As for you also, because of the blood of My covenant with you, I have set your prisoners free from the waterless pit.
The covenant is the promise of obedience to the LORD affirmed with a yearly blood sacrifice, as recorded in Exodus 24:1-8. Redemption like in Psalms 107.
Baldwin, Joyce (1972)