In a comment to me in RPP, one of the commenters states:
“The correct word for pierced – as in by a sharp instrument is “דקר.”
That Zechariah 12:10 speaking of messianic days uses the more explicit “דקר” which does mean “pierced through” as in by stabbing, shows that the concept of a pierced messiah is understood from Torah.””
The implication here (and please correct me if I am wrong), is that the person who is pierced in Zech 12:10 is Jesus.
Zech 12:10 states:
“And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of he who was pierced, and they shall mourn over him as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son.”
Two questions:
- Does it say anywhere that this person who is pierced is the messiah?
- This verse takes place in a chapter which describes a battle where all the nations of the world are fighting against Jerusalem, and the Jewish people fight back and win valiantly and only one person is killed in this battle. Does this chapter describe the context in which Jesus was killed? Did he die in battle when all the nations of the world were attacking Israel? Was there an astonishing victory by Israel over the nations in battle during the time of Jesus???
24 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 10, 2010 at 7:11 am
yash613
Answers:
1. No – none at all
2. No. No and No. In fact, this chapter in context has nothing to do with the context in which Jesus died meaning this chapter clearly doesn’t point to him.
It sounds nice though that someone gets pierced – I can see why a missionary would quote it – however, it doesn’t talk about the messiah, nor Jesus: so it doesn’t prove anything for them.
August 10, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Israel
1. It is seen as a reference to messiah since it takes place during messianic times – ie when he comes to rescue Israel from her enemies. This hasn’t happened yet.
2.It is incorrect to assume that the injuries sustained by the one looked upon were sustained during the battle mentioned. It can just as easily be assumed, if not more so, that the injury was before the battle, healed, and it is because of that injury he is identified as the one who shields those in Jerusalem (v.8) ie the identity of the Angel of the HaShem who has the name of HaShem in him. This one is identified with the description given, and when he is looked upon, the people mourn, just as Jacob mourned for Joseph – a firstborn son (yet he was alive), and like Joseph who cried upon his father Jacob at their reunion.
August 10, 2010 at 11:56 pm
yash613
1. Ahh so if it hasn’t happened yet, it can’t be talking about Jesus’ crucifixion! I agree with you there
2. Interesting how you make a comparison with Jacob and Joseph. Although, did Zachariah make this comparison? No he did not. Actually, he compares the mourning in this case to the mourning that took place in meggido. If you look at II Kings 23, you see that in the battle of meggido the leader of the nation, Josiah gets killed during the fighting by an enemy!
So what makes more sense? Does this person in Zech 12 get killed in battle in a similar way to Josiah as suggested by the prophet Zachariah. OR is it as you suggest that his death was not connected to the battle, and actually got killed thousands of years before it….methinks you depart from the text, sir.
August 11, 2010 at 4:51 am
Israel
1. Zech 12:10 isn’t about the crucifixion of messiah. It’s an event that happens at the End of the Age. It is clearly messianic.
2. Death isn’t mentioned in Zech 12:10 in connection with the battle. Only mourning is. And what kind of mourning it is is debatable. The text teaches us who the Angel of HaShem is. It is the one who is pierced.
Since Zechariah can’t add or subtract from Torah, then if he is writing about Messiah, then we can only stand what Zechariah writes about Messiah through only a Torah understanding of Messiah, as his revelation would only then be divinely inspired commentary on the Torah concerning the matter.
August 11, 2010 at 5:09 am
yash613
1. Well I am glad that you agree with me on this point and disagree with John 19 who does seem to think that this talking about the crucifixion (albeit with a manipulation of the verse – as demonstrated here)
2. The mourning is compared to the mourning which took place when king Josiah was killed in battle. You can debate that if you like, but the point Zechariah made is pretty clear.
August 11, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Israel
1. I don’t disagree with John’s commentary on what is happening in Zech 12:10.
2. As bography so simply posted from the Bavli, Sukkah 52a – the understanding of the mourning that is taking place is definitely disagreeable.
But as with all things, regardless, all understanding of the Messiah can only come from the Torah. Not even Zechariah can add to or subtract from that understanding. So then, I personally don’t see the value of arguing over a divinely inspired commentary on the matter. It’s like arguing about the virgin conception based on the Prophets alone, when the Torah is very clear concerning the matter. So then I also don’t need to argue the death and the manner of the death of Messiah by the Prophets, as the Torah already teaches us concerning it.
If you want to discuss the Torah concerning the matter, please feel free to address what I wrote here: http://roshpinaproject.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/the-lion-dug-the-nail-into-my-hand/#comment-12247
August 12, 2010 at 12:11 am
yash613
Israel you wrote: “1. Zech 12:10 isn’t about the crucifixion of messiah. It’s an event that happens at the End of the Age. It is clearly messianic.”
John writes (19:34,36-37) “Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water…These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.””
So John says it DID happen in the crucifixion, you say it does not. Sounds like you disagree to me…
2. Actually, the section that bography posted re-enforces my point that it is talking about the death of the leader in battle as opposed to other opinions which are not supported by scripture.
I understand why you don’t see the point arguing over the book of Zachariah…because the more you argue, the more you realise that your mate Jesus isn’t being spoken of there 😉
August 12, 2010 at 1:24 am
Israel
“So John says it DID happen in the crucifixion, you say it does not. Sounds like you disagree to me…”
No, I believe I clarified that the piercing takes place not as a result of the battle, thus Zech 12:10 still stands as a future event.
The leader does not die as a result of the battle in Zech 12:10, for if it is about Mashiach ben Yoseph, the one must realize that Yoseph never died.. even though Jacob (Israel) thought he was dead, yet later declares “my son is yet alive!”
“your mate Jesus…”
Mate?
Say, you wouldn’t happen to be a South African, maybe under a different name of another web personality that I know that claims to be an orthodox Jew on a crusade to “expose” Messianic Jews, would you?
August 12, 2010 at 1:36 am
yash613
I’m not sure what you clarified, but your comments are making less and less sense every time you post.
John says very clearly that the ‘fulfillment’ of Zec 12:10 (his corrupt version of Zech 12:10) is when the roman soldier pierced jesus’ side and looked at him. You are saying that is not what Zech 12:10 is speaking about….thats what I am gleaning from your comments anyway.
As for your comments about Yosef not dying and therefore Messiah ben Joseph not dying – you clearly have not studied very much about who Messiah ben Joseph is at all! Start here, and then come back to me.
No, I am not South African and I do not have another web personality. Wrong guy, sorry. (Mate is an Australianism)
August 12, 2010 at 3:30 am
yash613
And by the way….you said “one must realize that Yoseph never died”
My reply is this:
Genesis 50:26 “And Joseph died at the age of one hundred ten years, and they embalmed him and he was placed into the coffin in Egypt.”
August 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Israel
Maybe I’m not being clear. Zech 12:10 is a future prophecy that happens at the End of the Age, and the pierced one is pierced well before then. John’s reference was saying that his piercing in the side at his crucifixion was a fulfillment of an expectation concerning Messiah – one that will be realized nationally at the End of the Age. In other words, John still holds to the belief that Zech 12:10 is a future event, and is simply stating for the record when in time (his present) the pierced one is pierced. He was pierced 2000 years ago. At the End of the Age, after the battle described in Zech 12:10, the people will look to the one who (just saved them in the battle and is identified as one who) “was” pierced – bringing to their minds that he had already come once as their deliverer but was rejected initially (just like Moses).
When I said “Yoseph never died” I was referring to the time between Yaakov’s statements: “his brother is dead” and “my son is yet alive.” He never was dead (when Yaakov said he was). The same is expected of Messiah ben Yoseph, in that Israel believes he’s dead, yet will one day admit that he is alive. And yes, I know who Messiah ben Yoseph is according to scripture and commentary (and have read Rabbi Moshe’s writing on the matter).
August 16, 2010 at 12:06 am
yash613
Yes, you are certainly not being clear because I have no idea what you are trying to say.
It still seems to me that you are trying to argue that Zech 12:10 is a future prophecy which happened 2000 years ago…I still am not making heads and tails of it. But don’t worry – John didn’t understand Zech 12:10 either – that’s why he changed what the verse said.
This comment of yours clearly shows that you do not understand who messiah ben joseph is, nor what his task will be. I am calling you out on this one that if you are claiming to have read what R. Moshe Shulman wrote about him – then you didn’t understand what he wrote, or didn’t want to understand. But perhaps you can answer my questions about messiah ben joseph here?
August 10, 2010 at 10:53 pm
bography
Just one thing, for the moment. How do you get “And they shall look to me because of he who was pierced” from וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָרוּ
August 10, 2010 at 11:42 pm
yash613
וְהִבִּיטוּ and they shall look
אֵלַי to me
אֵת אֲשֶׁ concerning
דָּקָרוּ he who they pierced
I can update the post to be more literal if you would prefer
August 11, 2010 at 8:47 am
bography
What about?
וְהִבִּיטוּ Vehibbiytu – “And they will look”
אֵלַי elay – “unto me”
אֵת אֲשֶׁר et asher- “whom”
דָּקָרוּ daqaru “they pierced” .
Say you asked a Hebrew speaker in the street – who had no theological interest or training – to read our Hebrew sentence, is it more likely he’ll choose your meaning?
To make my query plainer, say we replaced “pierced” דָּקָרוּ with יִּקְרְאוּ “they called,” or any other verb – “they rejected,” “they disobeyed”, and so on.
August 11, 2010 at 10:02 am
yash613
The reason why that translation doesn’t work is when you look at the next two words in that sentence: וספדו עליו “and mourn for him”
So if we were to use your translation:
“And they will look unto me whom the pierced and mourn for him.” Well who is the ‘me’ and who is the ‘him’?
The truth is, (and I am a Hebrew speaker in the street) that ‘et asher’ best translates to ‘concerning which’
So the sentence makes a lot more sense with the accurate translation:
“And they shall look to me concerning he whom they pierced, and mourn for him”
August 11, 2010 at 10:07 am
yash613
(there is of course, a reason why John 19:37 changed the ‘me’ to ‘him’. Also I can only guess that he left out the ‘and mourn for him’ because John tried to apply this verse to the Roman soldier who pierced Jesus’ side, who probably never mourned for him.)
August 11, 2010 at 6:14 pm
bography
I was in the London Jewish Museum today, which has an exhibition of illuminated Hebrew books from the Vatican and Major British collections. Among the many mavellous books, were Maimonides’ “Mishneh Torah” (1475), the “Torah” (Constantinople, 1546) with texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, Persian, and Arabic in Hebrew characters. The latter book was published by the famous Eliezer Soncino, who published some of the other 16th century books on display.
This evening, I came across another work published by the Soncino family:
Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a
And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart
[Zech. 12:12]….What is the cause of the mourning? — R. Dosa and the Rabbis differ on the point. One explained. The cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, and the other explained, The cause is the slaying of the Evil Inclination.
It is well with him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse, And they shall look upon me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son; but according to him who explains the cause to be the slaying of the Evil Inclination, is this an occasion for mourning? Is it not rather an occasion for rejoicing? Why then should they weep?
— Soncino Talmud edition.
Yash, what do you make of this?
August 12, 2010 at 12:00 am
yash613
I agree with the understanding that the person slayed is the Messiah son of Joseph (for my post about who this dude is – see here)
If you follow the argument that is going on in this section you have quoted, they are arguing against the idea that that it is the evil inclination.
What it is saying is:
A says its Messiah ben Joseph
B says its evil incination
A makes sense because “well agrees with the Scriptural verse”
B makes no sense because you wouldn’t be mourning over the slaying of the evil inclination.
Therefore B’s opinion is rejected
August 16, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Kenneth Greifer
Zechariah 12:10 can say many other things than the usual translation. If you look at my site, you can see translations you have not considered before.
Kenneth Greifer
http://www.messianicmistakes.com/
August 17, 2010 at 4:34 am
yash613
Thanks for the input, Kenneth. Can I make some constructive criticism for your book? I was reading the section of Zech 12:10 and I think it would be very helpful to include the words in Hebrew rather than just spelling out the letters in English. This would be especially useful when you regroup the letters.
September 8, 2010 at 12:00 am
uriyosef
Check out my article on Zechariah 12:10 – A Piercing Look at A False Claim – http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Zech12_10.pdf
Uri
September 8, 2010 at 12:52 am
yash613
Very grateful for your comments, Uri and your articles are truly wonderful, clear, well researched and well presented.
The real question, of course, is if people are willing to sacrifice what they have always believed for the truth if it is presented right under their nose? Methinks the cognitive dissonance (or perhaps just the ego) reigns too strong
September 15, 2010 at 7:04 am
Nakdimon
Ok, time to turn you hyper-skepticism on your own position.
1. Name me ANY Messianic prophecy that you deem Messianic, where it says anywhere that the subject is the Messiah?
2. Where does the text say that the one being pierced is actually being pierced around the time of the mourning?
Nakdimon