Jesus as the Pierced One: The Use of Zechariah 12:10 in John’s Gospel and Revelation

McMaster Divinity College Press

McMaster Biblical Studies Series, Volume 4

Jesus as the Pierced One

The Use of Zechariah 12:10 in John’s Gospel and Revelation

Bret A. Rogers

Foreword by Paul M. Hoskins

Jesus as the Pierced One

The Use of Zechariah 12:10 in John’s Gospel and Revelation

McMaster Biblical Studies Series, Volume 4

McMaster Divinity College Press

Copyright © 2020 Bret A. Rogers. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Pickwick Publications McMaster Divinity College Press

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers 1280 Main Street West

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3 Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Eugene, OR 97401 L8S 4K1

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-5326-9640-4

hardcover isbn: 978-1-5326-9641-1

ebook isbn: 978-1-5326-9642-8

Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Names: Rogers, Bret A., author. | Hoskins, Paul M., foreword.

Title: Jesus as the pierced one : the use of Zechariah

12:10

in John’s gospel and Revelation / Bret A. Rogers; foreword by Paul M. Hoskins.

Description: Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications,

2019.

| McMaster Biblical Studies Series

4.

| Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

Identifiers:

isbn 978-1-5326-9640-4 (

paperback

). | isbn 978-1-5326-9641-1 (

hardcover

). | isbn 978-1-5326-9642-8 (

ebook

).

Subjects: LCSH: Bible. John—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible. Revelation—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible. Zechariah—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Christology.

Classification:

BS2615.52 R63 2020 (

paperback

). | BS2615.52 (

ebook

).

Manufactured in the U.S.A. 07/01/20

To Rachel,

my beloved and faithful wife,

Luke, Levi, Anna, and Abigail,

who all helped me finish well

Table of Contents

Jesus as the Pierced One

Foreword

Preface

Abbreviations

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Yahweh as the Pierced One

Chapter 3: The Pierced One’s First Redeeming Advent

Chapter 4: The Pierced One’s Second Redeeming Advent

Chapter 5: Looking on the Pierced One Now

Chapter 6: Conclusion

Appendix 1: Comparative Analysis of Zech 12:10, 12a in John 19:37 and Rev 1:7

Appendix 2: Comparative Analysis of Early Greek Translations of Zech 12:10

Appendix 3: Proposed Identifications of the Pierced One

Bibliography

Foreword

I have had the privilege of seeing this project develop from a seminar paper into a dissertation and now into a book. In this work, Bret Rogers defends a particular view of Zech 12 : 10 , which has significant implications for John’s use of this verse in John 19 : 37 and Rev 1 : 7 . He shows that it is possible, and even likely, that Zech 12 : 10 refers to the piercing of God, and not merely the piercing of God’s human representative. As Rogers argues in chapter 2 , the Septuagint’s odd translation of Zech 12 : 10 supports the idea that such a piercing would be hard to make sense of prior to the piercing of Jesus, who is God in the flesh (John 1 : 14 ). Rogers’s work on Zech 12 : 10 and John 19 : 37 provides a helpful challenge to the many interpreters who opt to see in Zech 12 : 10 only the piercing of God’s representative. In addition, a number of interpreters have worked out possible interpretations of the various elements of John 19 : 37 ’s quotation of Zech 12 : 1 0 (They will look on him whom they have pierced). They have rarely, however, considered how John 19 : 37 ’s quotation of Zech 12 : 10 could be related to John’s allusion to the same verse in Rev 1 : 7 . Even those who have noted and commented on the connection have not treated the significance of this commonality with the type of depth that one finds in Rogers’s work. This is surprising, since scholars commonly note that the use of Zech 12 : 10 is one of the clear commonalities between the Gospel of John and Revelation.

Everyone who reads this work will emerge indebted to Rogers for his detailed, plausible interpretations of Zech 12:10, John 19:37, and Rev 1:7. He provides food for thought that will be helpful for all, even for those who remain unconvinced by his main points. John ties these verses together and Rogers attempts to interpret the connections between them. Along the way, he shows forth the marvelous richness of these verses, which are capable of being the focus of an entire book (like this one) and of several years of concentrated work (for Bret Rogers).

Paul M. Hoskins, Ph.D.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Fort Worth, Texas

Preface

Before he fell asleep in the Lord, I remember talking with my Opa on the phone while he was in the hospital. John 1 : 18 was the text that afternoon: No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. That’s the key, he told me. Once you see that Jesus is God, everything else in the Bible makes sense; it just falls into place. People have got to understand that. Having spent the last several years studying John’s use of Zech 12 : 10 , I could not agree more with my Opa’s assertion. I only hope that what I have written in the following pages will help people to understand God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ and to see in his piercing the coming of God to save his elect before replacing all rebel kingdoms with his own. Until that Day of glory comes, let all thanksgiving abound to his name.

I am thankful the Lord provided Paul Hoskins to advise me through my doctoral studies, from which the current book sprang. Paul offered competent direction as a professor, constructive criticism as a reader, and consistent encouragement as a brother in Christ. He also prayed for me regularly. I am also thankful that Mark Taylor agreed to read my dissertation. He taught my first seminary class for the MDiv; it was fitting to have him see me through the last step for the PhD. Mark set the bar high for every professor thereafter in clear pedagogy and godly character. I am also thankful for George Klein. In terms of careful research and writing, no one has been more influential. I can still hear his counsel: Writing is a lot like herding cattle; if you leave a gate open, they’re going to go through it. George was a kind companion, knowing my weaknesses and supporting me still. I am also thankful to Stanley Porter, David Fuller, and MDC Press for considering my work, offering careful feedback, and granting me the opportunity to publish with them.

The Lord also used Redeemer Church in Fort Worth. Members encouraged me. Some prayed for me. All of them welcomed eighty sermons through John’s Gospel and twenty-three sermons through Zechariah. My fellow elders were always the first to hear me rant about quitting this project, and always the first to help me reevaluate my desires, admonish me in Christ, and counsel me away from pursuing my own comforts. The elders also helped shoulder the load when I devoted myself to writing. I thank the Lord for Bryan Walker, whose voluminous library was always nearby and served me well. I was never lacking in enough resources. Jonathan Watson ran this race before me, and his brotherly love helped me persevere when my confidence was waning.

The Lord also graced me with parents who cheered me on. More importantly, Allen and Kellie Rogers kept me looking on the pierced Jesus for strength, and mom gave me feedback on each chapter as they rolled out. My in-laws, David and Laurel Fort, persevered in prayer for me, and throughout their missionary endeavors were a continuous reminder that God’s grace is sufficient. My children, Luke, Levi, Anna, and Abigail could not have been more patient with the work required to finish this project. I will never forget Luke’s exhortation on the evening I truly wanted to give up: It’s just like mom always tells me, do your work unto the Lord, and work hard until it’s done. Speaking of his mom, the Lord has given me such a wonderful gift in Rachel. She is an excellent wife, my partner in grace, and the sacrifices she made to see me finish are countless. When my soul felt dry and dead, she brought me Jesus. To him be blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving, forever and ever.

Bret A. Rogers

Fort Worth, Texas

August 2017

Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible

ABD Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

AnBib Analecta Biblica

AOTC Abingdon Old Testament Commentary

ArBib The Aramaic Bible

ATDan Acta Theologica Danica

ATR Anglican Theological Review

AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies

BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research

BDAG Bauer, Walter, et al. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

BDB Brown, Francis, et al. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907.

BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

BHK Biblia Hebraica. Edited by Rudolph Kittel. Liepzig: Hinrichs, 1905–1906.

BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.

Bib Biblica

BibAn Biblical Annuals

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentary

BR Biblical Research

BST Bible Speaks Today

BZ Biblische Zeitschrift

BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CAT Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament

CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

ConBNT Coniectanea Neotestamentica

CTR Criswell Theological Review

CurBS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies

CurBR Currents in Biblical Research

DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

DSS Dead Sea Scrolls

EBC Expositor’s Bible Commentary

EBib Etudes bibliques

ECNT Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

ESV English Standard Version

ET English Translation

ETL Ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

EvQ Evangelical Quarterly

FB Forschung zur Bibel

FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature

GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by Emil Kautzsch. Translated by Arther E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910.

HALOT Koehler, Ludwig, et al. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999.

HAR Hebrew Annual Review

HBS Herders biblische Studien

HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible

HNTC Harper’s New Testament Commentary

HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

IBHS Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

IBS Irish Biblical Studies

ICC International Critical Commentary

IJST International Journal for Studies in Theology

IVPNTC IVP New Testament Commentary

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JBT Jarbuch für biblische Theologie

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

Joüon Jouon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991.

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

KHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar

LBT Library of Biblical Theology

LHBOTS The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies

LNTS The Library of New Testament Studies

LXX Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate societatis litterarum gottingensis editum

MT Masoretic Text

MwJT Midwestern Journal of Theology

NAC New American Commentary

NASB New American Standard Bible

NCB New Century Bible

NDBT Alexander, T. Desmond, et al., eds. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity and Diversity of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000.

Neot Neotestamentica

NET New English Translation

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIDOTTE VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV New International Version

NIVAC NIV Application Commentary

NJB New Jerusalem Bible

NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplment

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology

NT New Testament

NTL New Testament Library

OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis

OT Old Testament

OTL Old Testament Library

OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën

PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary

POuT De Prediking van het Oude Testament

ProEccl Pro Ecclesia

PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies

RB Revue Biblique

ResQ Restoration Quarterly

RSR Recherches de science religieuse

SB Sources bibliques

SBB Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge

SBJT Southern Baptist Journal of Theology

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study

SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series

ScEccl Sciences ecclésiastiques

SCJ Stone-Campbell Journal

SEBS Scholars’ Editions in Biblical Studies

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

SP Sacra Pagina

SWJT Southwestern Journal of Theology

TDNT Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976.

ThKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament

TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentary

TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentary

TrinJ Trinity Journal

TS Theological Studies

UF Ugarit-Forschungen

VL Vulgate

VT Vetus Testamentum

VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZBK Zürcher Bibelkommentare

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

1

Introduction

Zechariah 12 : 10 stands as an obscure prophecy for interpreters of Scripture, whether ancient or modern. ¹ Beyond the diverse reception-history, text-critical problems, unusual grammar, and contextual ambiguities, the challenging question remains, Who shall we say Zechariah’s Pierced One is? The Apostle John apparently finds resolution to Zechariah’s prophecy in the person and mission of Jesus, referencing it once for Jesus’ ignominious death (John 19:37) and again for Jesus’ glorious return (Rev 1:7). Yet for all the mounting scholarship devoted to the NT writers’ use of the OT, ² including John’s use of Zechariah in particular, ³ no in-depth treatment exists for how John’s use of Zech 12:10 builds on an understanding of Jesus’ divine identity in his eschatological mission, especially when considered in light of a joint study of John 19:37 and Rev 1:7.

Thesis

This study will examine how John’s use of Zech 12:10 builds on an understanding of God’s self-disclosure in Jesus’ two-fold eschatological mission. John 19:37 will provide the initial insight to how God’s self-disclosure in Jesus enables John to link the piercing of Jesus’ side with the fulfillment of Zechariah’s puzzling promise that people will somehow pierce Yahweh. Revelation 1:7 will then give further insight to how God’s self-disclosure in Jesus enables John to maintain the eschatological elements of Zechariah’s prophecy such that Jesus’ piercing is both prerequisite for and fundamental to God’s eschatological work. The purpose in bringing John 19:37 and Rev 1:7 into a single study is to demonstrate that God’s self-revelation in Jesus appears to provide John the interpretive key that unlocks the mysterious promise of Zech 12:10. Considering the piercing of Jesus, whom John presents as God the Son incarnate, it becomes apparent how God receives the piercing as part and parcel to his eschatological work of salvation.

In order to pursue such a thesis, two major objectives stand in the way. First, it is necessary to investigate the identity of the Pierced One in Zech 12:10 and demonstrate the validity of understanding the Pierced One’s identity as more than a human representative of Yahweh but as Yahweh himself. This first objective will also help gauge whether John imposes onto Zech 12:10 a meaning that was never present, or imports from Zech 12:10 a meaning that was justifiably always present yet hidden until God’s final self-disclosure in Jesus Christ.

Second, I must investigate how the apostle John uses Zech 12:10 in the Fourth Gospel and Revelation in order to help his readers understand the Christological and eschatological significance of Jesus’ crucifixion and return. Sound exegesis will demand giving adequate attention to the immediate contexts of John 19:37 and Rev 1:7 as well as to the broader narrative elements John employs for his theological presentation within each book. Also, a careful consideration of John’s hermeneutical presuppositions will transpire in determining John’s exegetical warrant for appropriating Zech 12:10 to explain Jesus’ death and return the way he does. Inevitably, our study must also answer how and why John appropriates the same OT text for two separate events in Jesus’ eschatological mission, his death and his return.

Pursuing the aforementioned thesis aligns with other contributions surrounding the NT writers’ use of the OT, especially those related to the use of Zechariah.⁴ Indeed, the following investigation into John’s use of Zech 12:10 even finds precedent as far back as Justin Martyr (Dial. 32.2; cf. 1 Apol. 52.11–12).⁵ Nevertheless, the following study will contribute to the field of NT studies in at least four ways.

First, I will argue that identifying the Pierced One as Yahweh is a credible and defensible reading of Zech 12:10. Even the Jewish and Christian interpretations that, in my estimation, rightly understand Zech 12:10 along lines of future messianic hope inadequately explain the piercing of Yahweh, since they restrict the piercing to Yahweh’s human messianic representative. Second, I will argue that John’s use of Zech 12:10 to explain Jesus’ identity and mission is credible, because Zechariah identifies Yahweh as the Pierced One and not merely with the Pierced One, a notion previous studies regularly overlook but which aligns well with John’s development of God’s self-disclosure in Jesus. Third, an in-depth study on the significance of the Pierced One’s identity in Rev 1:7 is lacking, and the following study will fill that void. Fourth, by treating John 19:37 and Rev 1:7 as complementary elements within John’s unified, eschatological narrative, the following study will be able to observe what previous research overlooks with respect to John’s use of Zech 12:10, such as the eschatological nature of Jesus’ death and the theological implications for the church’s mission to the nations before Jesus’ return.⁶ Such are the contributions the following study will pursue. Of course, none of them originated without the help of previous research on Zech 12:10 and John’s use of it in John 19:37 and Rev 1:7. To this survey we now turn.

History of Research

The survey of research will progress in three basic sections. The first section will survey the literature pertaining to the identity of the mysterious Pierced One in Zech 12:10 quite apart from its use by John and show where room exists for further refinement. Section two will lay out how interpreters have handled John’s use of Zech 12:10 in John 19:37. The primary goal is to show that room for further work exists in explaining how and why John links Zechariah’s Pierced One to Jesus’ divine identity, especially in light of the cross, the climactic point of God’s self-revelation in the Son. Lastly, section three will review literature on John’s use of Zech 12:10 in Rev 1:7 and demonstrate that existing answers to how Zech 12:10 functions in Rev 1:7 and to how the prophecy contributes to John’s theology throughout Revelation need development.

Survey of Literature on Zech 12:10

We begin, then, with research surrounding the identity of the Pierced One in Zech 12:10. While the diverse reception-history, text-critical problems, grammatically unusual constructions, and contextual ambiguities of Zech 12:10 could warrant a survey of its own, the following will only survey how interpreters answer the central interpretive question of Zech 12:10, Who shall we say Zechariah’s Pierced One is? Answers to the latter question have included numerous referents over the centuries, but all of them fall into one of five major views.⁷ Since more extensive interaction with the five views occurs in chapter 2, I will only summarize the five views here and show how my thesis corresponds to prior research.

Few argue for a past-collective identification of the Pierced One in Zech 12:10. The past-collective view identifies the Pierced One as a collective martyr whose death occurred prior to Zechariah’s prophecy. That is, the singular reference to a Pierced One represents a larger body of people that actually suffers the piercing. Moreover, the past-collective view interprets the collective piercing as a past event to Zechariah’s audience, such as the slaying of the Benjaminites in Judg 20:45–47.⁸

More popular is the present-collective identity of the Pierced One. The present-collective view makes a claim similar to the past-collective view by interpreting the Pierced One in a collective sense. However, these interpreters shift the occasion of the piercing from the past to the present, thereby associating the piercing with Zechariah’s contemporaries, whether Jewish martyrs, prophetic figures, visionary disciples, or oppressed Judahites.⁹

The past-singular comes next in our five major views, since, to my knowledge, no collective interpretation for a time future to Zechariah exists. The past-singular view not only rejects a collective referent in the pronouns surrounding the Pierced One of Zech 12:10, but the past-singular view also includes identifications of the Pierced One associated with historical figures who died before the post-Exilic period in which Zechariah prophesied. Options usually include men like King Josiah (2 Chron 35:22–25), Gedaliah (2 Kgs 25:25; Jer 41:1–2), Uriah, son of Shemiah (Jer 26:20), and Zechariah, son of Jehoiada (2 Kgs 24:20–22; 2 Chron 24:20–22).¹⁰

Still others argue for a present-singular view. Interpreters in this fourth category also affirm the singular referent and believe that individuals serving in roles more relevant to Zechariah’s audience are the most suitable candidates for the Pierced One. Contemporaries of Zechariah usually set forward as the Pierced One include Zerubbabel, Simon Maccabeus (1 Macc 16:11–17), Onias III (2 Macc 4:34), Joshua the high priest (Ant. 11.7.1), an unnamed prophet of Yahweh, or someone killed in the war of Zech 12:1–8.¹¹

But the most prevalent singular view—and the most prevalent of all five major views categorized here—goes to the future-singular identification of the Pierced One. The future-singular view maintains a referent to a unique individual, but then interprets the prophet’s words to be more future-oriented than any of the other views are willing to grant. Consistently, the conclusion is that the Pierced One of Zech 12:10 signifies a future messianic figure who stands as God’s representative for Israel.¹²

Within the future-singular view, the works of Anthony R. Petterson, Niko Bilić, and Adam Kubiś provide the most extensive treatment of the identity of the Pierced One in Zech 12:10. My own thesis will attempt to build on their works and show where I believe further refinement exists for the identity of the Pierced One in Zech 12:10. For example, Petterson interacts with the exegetical details of Zech 12:10 only in limited fashion, since his study has much broader aims. In my assessment, he has not advanced the discussions of prior commentators.

Bilić and Kubiś spend more time handling the exegetical minutiae of Zech 12:10. Nevertheless, several areas could use further attention. For instance, Bilić helpfully argues that the grammatical construction אֵת אֲשֶׁר functions the same way in Zech 12:10 and Jer 38:9, but I will build on his insight from additional OT passages that reflect the same grammatical construction, such as found in 1 Sam 16:3, 1 Sam 28:8, and Ezek 23:22. Also, Kubiś gives a footnote to the possibility of style having a potential bearing on the alternation of suffixes, but appears to dismiss the overall significance.¹³ However, the following research will unveil several other passages that contain stylistic nuances similar to those found in Zech 12:10. Passages such as Isa 37:21–22, Isa 45:24, Zech 7:13, and Zech 9:9–10 should not only give further credence to the unique style found in Zech 12:10, but also lead to further precision regarding the same referent in the object of looking and the object of piercing than Kubiś seems willing to allow.¹⁴ Finally, Kubiś and others have labored toward a plausible explanation for the LXX’s odd rendering of Zech 12:10. However, previous studies have overlooked the way the LXX renders other OT passages wherein a human representative of Yahweh gets pierced. These findings seem to clarify why the LXX avoids the piercing of Yahweh in Zech 12:10, further confirming that the Pierced One of the original prophecy is best understood as Yahweh. Readers will need to weigh the evidence for themselves, but in my judgment the combination of these insights further elucidates the identity of the Pierced One as Yahweh himself, even despite how subsequent manuscript traditions and translations handled the received text. Thus, were someone like the Apostle John to read Zech 12:10 centuries later as an explicit reference to the piercing of Yahweh, such a reading would be justified on the basis of the prophet’s words alone.¹⁵ These are but a few ways I intend to advance my thesis in light of previous work on the identity of the Pierced One in Zech 12:10. But before doing so, surveys of literature on John’s use of Zech 12:10 in John 19:37 and in Rev 1:7 are still in order.

Survey of Literature on John’s Use of Zech 12:10 in John 19:37

Regarding John’s use of Zech 12:10 in John 19:37, many give minimal commentary beyond assertions that John wanted his readers to believe Jesus died to fulfill prophecy or to complete his Father’s plan.¹⁶ Other interpreters have rightly shown that John has more in mind. By citing Zech 12:10, John also identifies Jesus as God’s promised, messianic representative, who parallels the shepherd figure of Zech 13:7 or the Suffering Servant of Isa 53 and realizes God’s saving purposes.¹⁷ However, the majority of these interpretations unnecessarily diminish the stronger Christological point John reveals by applying Zech 12:10 to the piercing of Jesus. John’s concern is not merely to disclose Jesus as God’s human representative, but to disclose his divinity, to identify him with and as Yahweh, and to do so from an OT witness.

Martin J. J. Menken comes close to the same conclusion when he argues that the true onlookers in John 19:37 are those who see in the pierced Jesus the exalted Son of Man.¹⁸ However, it remains unclear whether Menken includes the Son of Man within the divine identity of Yahweh. Moreover, he believes John’s primary interest lies not so much in the identity of the Pierced One with Jesus as in the identity of those looking on the Pierced One with believers.

R. C. H. Lenski, Edwyn C. Hoskyns, J. J. O’Rourke, Klaus Wengst, and Craig S. Keener each take the piercing of Zech 12:10 as happening to Yahweh and then see John’s appropriation as a deliberate identification of Jesus with Yahweh.¹⁹ Yet none of these interpreters expound on their conclusion or integrate their conclusion into the high Christology saturating John’s Gospel except for Lenski and O’Rourke, who, in one sentence, integrate their conclusion with what John affirms about Jesus being God’s Son or what John affirms about the Word in John 1:1–14.²⁰

Likewise, Andreas Köstenberger argues that John’s use of Zech 12:10 in John 19:37 solves the age-old mystery of how God could experience suffering from the hands of men. The mystery can be understood more fully only in light of the incarnation and crucifixion of the Word-become-flesh, Jesus, who, as the God-man, was pierced for our transgressions as the messianic shepherd and the suffering servant . . . ²¹ However, when it comes to explaining the theological use of Zech 12:10 in John 19:37, Köstenberger asserts that John’s appropriation of Zechariah 12:10 . . . operates on the basis of the hermeneutical axiom that Yahweh acts in the person of his authorized representative, the messianic shepherd, so that to strike and kill the shepherd, or to pierce him, is in a sense to pierce Yahweh himself.²²

Two weaknesses surface in Köstenberger’s approach. One, describing John’s hermeneutical axiom as Yahweh acting in his authoritative representative is too narrow in the case of John 19:37. John seems intent to select Zech 12:10 over the more popular OT passages where a connection to Yahweh acting in his representative would be more straightforward (e.g., Isa 53; Ps 22). Moreover, because John now understands Jesus to share divinity with the Father, John’s hermeneutical axiom—at least in the case of John 19:37—seems better described as Jesus is God.²³ Two, despite that Köstenberger affirms that Zech 12:10 refers to the piercing of Yahweh himself, he still applies the piercing to Yahweh’s representative and relates it to the alternation of suffixes in the Hebrew text.²⁴ As mentioned above, a better explanation for the alternation of suffixes may exist.

Adam Kubiś, providing the most extensive treatment of the subject, also shows precedent in the literature for arguing that John identifies Jesus with and as Yahweh by citing Zech 12:10. He concludes,

John embraces . . . the messianic interpretation of the oracle [i.e., the messianic interpretation of Zech 12:10 known to the Second Temple period], but he also reinterprets it in a totally new way: the pierced one is the Messiah who is the same as the one on whom they have looked, i.e. God. The pierced Messiah is God and the pierced God is the Messiah.²⁵

While I can agree with Kubiś’s final conclusion, I actually believe he ends up minimizing the theological import of Zech 12:10, which does not need reinterpretation in a totally new way but elucidation in light of the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ. In contrast to Kubiś, I am proposing that John is not reinterpreting Zech 12:10—that is, by adding a divine dimension to the merely human messianic dimension of the original—but citing Zech 12:10 because of the divine dimension that was always explicitly there in the original, however cryptic it must have seemed prior to Jesus’ first advent.²⁶ Only through Jesus’ earthly ministry and the post-resurrection activity of the Spirit did John learn to read Zech 12:10 with this clarity; and such an understanding of Zech 12:10 is why John employed it for his purposes in John 19:37 and Rev 1:7, the latter of the two citations now deserving its own survey of literature.

Survey of Literature on John’s Use of Zech 12:10 in Rev 1:7

When considering the literature on John’s use of Zech 12:10 in Rev 1:7, the majority of interpreters admit that an allusion to Zech 12:10 exists. However, they regularly minimize the significance of the Pierced One’s identity in relation to Jesus while focusing instead on the nature of the nations’ mourning.²⁷ Their focus certainly stands justified, as the universal response of the nations further develops the motifs of Zechariah interwoven throughout John’s Revelation, especially the additional allusion in Rev 1:7 to Zech 12:12–14.²⁸ Nevertheless, deserving equal attention is how the Pierced One in Zech 12:10 contributes to understanding Jesus’ identity in Rev 1:7 as well as the significance of Jesus’ eschatological mission through the book of Revelation. To my knowledge, only a few interpreters interact with the identity and mission of Zechariah’s Pierced One in this particular way from Rev 1:7.

As many do with John’s use of Zech 12:10 in John 19:37, Randolf R. Rogers argues that in Rev 1:7 John only means to identify Jesus as the pierced Shepherd figure of Zechariah, but not necessarily as Yahweh.²⁹ Marko Jauhiainen looks at Zechariah’s influence on Revelation as a whole. Regarding Rev 1:7, Jauhiainen concludes that John saw the coming of the Pierced One—who in Zech 12:10 is Yahweh—in terms of Jesus’ coming.³⁰ However, like Rogers, Jauhiainen still maintains the distinction between Yahweh and his representative when interpreting Zech 12:10 and John’s use of the prophecy in Rev 1:7, something I will argue can minimize the Christological point John intends to emphasize.³¹

G. K. Beale argues that John alludes to Zech 12:10 in order to identify Jesus with the pierced God of Zechariah, even referring to Jesus as the messenger or associate mentioned in Zech 12:10.³² However, unlike Rogers and Jauiainen, Beale clarifies that the significance of the allusion to Zech 12:10 is that Jesus must share divine status with God.³³ Beale follows Alan D. Hultberg’s 1995 presentation on The Significance of Zech 12:10 for the Theology of the Apocalypse. Hultberg’s conclusion is that the broader contours of Zechariah, which meld the figures of Messiah and God, drive John’s identification of the pierced Yahweh with Jesus.³⁴ Likewise, Sean M. McDonough’s study on the Dreizeitenformel, the one who is and who was and who is to come, in Rev 1:4 suggests that John fits within the early Christian tradition that viewed Yahweh’s coming in the OT as Jesus’ coming.³⁵ Drawing such a conclusion from Rev 1:4 then influences the way McDonough understands John’s allusion to Zech 12:10 in Rev 1:7 as an equating of Jesus’ mission with that of Yahweh.³⁶ In a later study, Hans-Georg Gradl also links Rev 1:7 with the Dreizeitenformel of Rev 1:4 and concludes, Prophetisch greift dies Apk 1,7 auf und expliziert das Kommen Gottes mit dem Kommen Christi.³⁷

Based on these latter studies that recognize the Christological significance of John’s appropriation of Zech 12:10 in Rev 1:7, ample precedent exists for pursuing the aforementioned thesis. In fact, the treatments of the Pierced One’s identity in Rev 1:7 by Rogers, Jauiainen, Hultberg, Beale, McDonough, and Gradl are only cursory and leave room to develop the role Zech 12:10 plays in understanding Jesus’ identity, his eschatological mission, and his revelation as a whole.

Moreover, by linking John’s use of Zech 12:10 in John 19:37 more closely with John’s use of Zech 12:10 in Rev 1:7, Revelation itself becomes part and parcel to understanding John’s theology.³⁸ For example, John’s use of Zech 12:10 in his Gospel does not suppress the narrative elements surrounding the prophecy of Zech 12:10, where expectation emerges for God’s eschatological judgment against the nations. Rather, John’s use of Zech 12:10 in Rev 1:7 helps readers see that John still upholds the eschatological thrust of the prophet’s original words. Also, instead of advocating a position whereby John compromises the meaning of Zech 12:10 by universalizing the piercers, onlookers, and mourners, I will propose that John’s