10 “And zI will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and zpleas for mercy, so that, awhen they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, bthey shall mourn for him, cas one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. 11 oOn that day dthe mourning in Jerusalem will be as great eas the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land shall mourn, feach family1 by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of gNathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of hthe Shimeites by itself, and their wives by themselves; 14 and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 슥 12:10–14.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 슥 12:10–14.
10절) 내가(여호와께서) 다윗의 집과 예루살렘에 거주하는 거주민들에게 은혜와 자비를 간구하는 심령을 부어줄 것이다. 그래서 그들이 찌른 분, 나를 바라볼 때 그들은 그분을 위하여 애통할 것인데 마치 독자를 위하여 애통하는 것같고 그분을 위해서 마치 장자를 위해서 통곡하는 것 같을 것이다.
부어주다라는 단어 ‘샤팍’는 종말론적으로 하나님의 은혜의 선포를 묘사한다.
- Furthermore, the term wĕšāpaktî can describe the manifestation of God’s grace in the eschatological era. In a notable example, the Lord will pour out his Spirit on all mankind (Ezek 39:29; see Acts 2:16–21). In another passage, Joel 2:28–29 declares,
And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 362–363.
And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 362–363.
본문에서 심령으로 사용되는 단어는 ‘루아흐’라는 단어인데 일반적으로 구약에서는 성령, 하나님의 영을 상징한다. 본문은 조금 다른 의미로 사용되는 것을 볼 수 있다.
- The word for “spirit” (rûaḥ) has evoked extensive discussions in v. 10, Zech 13:2, and throughout the Old Testament.428 The diversity of translations that rûaḥ may suggest has encouraged different interpretations of the “spirit.” Some understand rûaḥ as a reference to the Spirit of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity. For example, Barker contends that this Trinitarian view is “in keeping with what appear to be parallel passages (Isa 32:15; 44:3; 59:20–21; Jer 31:31, 33; Ezek 36:26–27; 39:29; Joel 2:28–29). Because of the convicting work of God’s Spirit, Israel will turn to the Messiah with mourning.”429 Barker is not wrong in affirming that rûaḥ can refer to God in the Old Testament, but his interpretation of v. 10 is far from certain.
McComiskey does not even acknowledge the possibility of a Trinitarian understanding of rûaḥ.430 McComiskey revisits the occurrences of rûaḥ in previous passages in Zechariah. In the three texts where rûaḥ occurs, the word “spirit” has a pronominal suffix that refers the noun back to God himself. Zechariah 4:6 and 6:8 refer to “my Spirit,” where the Lord does the speaking. Zechariah 7:12 contains “his Spirit,” but again the clear antecedent to the pronoun is God. But no markers exist in 12:10 to indicate that the “spirit” Zechariah introduced refers to the Lord.
The “spirit” in v. 10 portrays the new heart God’s people possess. When “spirit” occurs in a “spirit of” construction, the expression speaks of an emotional disposition, such as a “spirit of jealousy” (Num 5:14) and a “spirit of justice” (Isa 28:6).431 Ezekiel 36:26 exemplifies this use of the word rûaḥ: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” Like that miraculous metamorphosis in Ezek 36, God’s work of grace in his people will transform their hardened sinful hearts into hearts characterized by grace, faith, and repentance. This change does not rest on human resolve or effort. Instead, the heart of “grace and supplication” represents the outcome of God’s gracious gift to them.
428 דוּחַ. HALOT, 1197–1201. TWOT, 3:1202–20; TDOT, 13:361–402.
429 Barker, “Zechariah,” 683; see Unger, Zechariah, 215–16.
430 McComiskey, Zechariah, 1214; see Merrill, Zechariah, 318–19.
431 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 335.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 363–364.
McComiskey does not even acknowledge the possibility of a Trinitarian understanding of rûaḥ.430 McComiskey revisits the occurrences of rûaḥ in previous passages in Zechariah. In the three texts where rûaḥ occurs, the word “spirit” has a pronominal suffix that refers the noun back to God himself. Zechariah 4:6 and 6:8 refer to “my Spirit,” where the Lord does the speaking. Zechariah 7:12 contains “his Spirit,” but again the clear antecedent to the pronoun is God. But no markers exist in 12:10 to indicate that the “spirit” Zechariah introduced refers to the Lord.
The “spirit” in v. 10 portrays the new heart God’s people possess. When “spirit” occurs in a “spirit of” construction, the expression speaks of an emotional disposition, such as a “spirit of jealousy” (Num 5:14) and a “spirit of justice” (Isa 28:6).431 Ezekiel 36:26 exemplifies this use of the word rûaḥ: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” Like that miraculous metamorphosis in Ezek 36, God’s work of grace in his people will transform their hardened sinful hearts into hearts characterized by grace, faith, and repentance. This change does not rest on human resolve or effort. Instead, the heart of “grace and supplication” represents the outcome of God’s gracious gift to them.
428 דוּחַ. HALOT, 1197–1201. TWOT, 3:1202–20; TDOT, 13:361–402.
429 Barker, “Zechariah,” 683; see Unger, Zechariah, 215–16.
430 McComiskey, Zechariah, 1214; see Merrill, Zechariah, 318–19.
431 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 335.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 363–364.
은혜(은총-Grace-hen)와 간구(supplication-타하눈)하는 심령을 부어주시는 하나님, 은혜가 받을 자격이 없는 자에게 주어지는 하나님의 호의라면 간구는 바로 그 하나님의 은혜를 구하는 행위라고 할 수 있다.
- “Grace and supplication” describe the spirit that the Lord will bestow on the otherwise recalcitrant nation.432 “Grace” (ḥēn) represents the mercy that God granted to an undeserving people.433 Some commentators wrongly translate the word as “compassion” or “pity,” missing the theological point of the passage.434 Grace represents God’s favor granted to those who deserved anything but divine blessing. This grace led the people to repent for the sin of piercing the one whom God had sent to deliver them. Grace also moved the nation to seek forgiveness. In turn, the forgiveness that only the Lord could extend resulted in a restored relationship between God and his people.435 The theological message parallels that in Rom 2:4b: “God’s kindness leads you toward repentance.”
Coupled with “grace,” Judah will also receive “supplication” (taḥănûnîm).436 HALOT defines the term as “pleading,” a word which has far greater emotive connotations than does “supplication.” The word taḥănûnîm communicates pleading for grace from the Lord. A clear parallel appears in Ps 143:1: “O Lord, hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy [taḥănûnay]; in your faithfulness and righteousness come to my relief.”437 Grace signifies the blessing that comes from the Lord alone; no one other than he can give the gift of grace. Supplication, or pleading for grace, represents the human side of the equation. Miraculously, the people of Judah would soon long for her relationship with their God to be restored.
432 The construct relationship, “spirit of grace and supplication,” expresses an attributive idea (see GKC § 128 p)—it describes the nature of the spirit/heart that Judah will receive from God.
433 חֵן. HALOT, 332; TDOT, 5:22–36.
434 Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic, 356.
435 Merrill, Zechariah, 319.
436 תַּחֲנוּנִים. HALOT, 1718–19.
HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, trans. M. E. J. Richardson
437 תַּחֲנוּנַי.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 364–365.
Coupled with “grace,” Judah will also receive “supplication” (taḥănûnîm).436 HALOT defines the term as “pleading,” a word which has far greater emotive connotations than does “supplication.” The word taḥănûnîm communicates pleading for grace from the Lord. A clear parallel appears in Ps 143:1: “O Lord, hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy [taḥănûnay]; in your faithfulness and righteousness come to my relief.”437 Grace signifies the blessing that comes from the Lord alone; no one other than he can give the gift of grace. Supplication, or pleading for grace, represents the human side of the equation. Miraculously, the people of Judah would soon long for her relationship with their God to be restored.
432 The construct relationship, “spirit of grace and supplication,” expresses an attributive idea (see GKC § 128 p)—it describes the nature of the spirit/heart that Judah will receive from God.
433 חֵן. HALOT, 332; TDOT, 5:22–36.
434 Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic, 356.
435 Merrill, Zechariah, 319.
436 תַּחֲנוּנִים. HALOT, 1718–19.
HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, trans. M. E. J. Richardson
437 תַּחֲנוּנַי.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 364–365.
이러한 놀라운 유다의 재기, 부흥은 본 스가랴서뿐만 아니라 구약의 여러 곳에 등장한다. 겔 37장의 마른 뼈 환상이 대표적이다.
- This miraculous revitalization of Judah does not emerge in the book of Zechariah only. It is also the theme of Ezek 37, comprising the revitalization of the valley of dry and disheveled bones (37:1–14) as well as the prophecy regarding the pieces of wood that symbolized the eschatological establishment of Judah’s new kingdom (37:15–28). In this future era “the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever” (Ezek 37:28). Isaiah’s prophecy regarding the coming Branch (Isa 11:1–16) and Micah’s mountain of the Lord oracle (Mic 4:1–8) both foretell a similar message of God’s people gathered and restored so that they may “walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever” (Mic 4:5b).
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 365.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 365.
본문에서 그들이 찌른 그분이 누구를 지칭하느냐에 대해서 많은 논란이 있다. 이를 역사적인 특정한 인물로 보는가 하면 이스라엘 나라와 그들의 신앙을 지키기 위해 순교한 인물로 보는가 하면, 십자가에 달리신 예수님을 나타낸다고 보기도 한다.
To what might Zechariah compare the depths of grief and mourning the nation would suffer once they received the new spirit from the Lord? Perhaps no sorrow in human experience could compare to the depths of grief parents feel at the death of “an only child.” The prophet chose the word yāḥîd to express the idea of “only child.”459 This same word occurs prominently in Gen 22:2, 12 to emphasize Isaac’s status as Abraham’s only son, and to make the reader understand the anguish of the situation when God commanded him to sacrifice the boy. Although “only child” is a correct translation, this English idiom fails to convey the full emotive force of the term in the biblical account. The word yāḥîd also describes Jephthah’s daughter whom he had vowed to sacrifice to the Lord (Judg 11:34). There is little doubt that Zechariah appreciated the poignancy carried by the unusual word yāḥîd in Gen 22 and Judg 11. Particularly in the Abraham and Isaac passage, the personal pathos of the circumstances was compounded by the fact that through Isaac the covenant promises of God to the patriarch would flow. Without the son, the promise of God could not come to fruition. The phrase “firstborn son” translates the Hebrew word bĕkôr, and reinforces the “only child” motif in the verse.460 The only child theme underscores the intensity of grief, mourning, and guilt for the murder of the pierced martyr.
459 יָחִיד. HALOT, 406–7.
460 בְכוֹר. HALOT, 131.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 368–369.
459 יָחִיד. HALOT, 406–7.
460 בְכוֹר. HALOT, 131.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 368–369.
- The New Testament alludes to Zech 12:10 on two separate occasions. First, John referred to v. 10 when presenting the death of Jesus as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. John wrote, “as another scripture says, ‘They will look on the one they have pierced’ ” (John 19:37; see v. 34).461 Second, in introducing his vision on the isle of Patmos, John presented the “son of man” (Rev. 1:13) with the following doxology: “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen” (v. 7).462
461 M. J. J. Menken, “The Textual Form and the Meaning of the Quotation from Zechariah 12:10 in John 19:37,” CBQ 55 (1993): 494–511.
462 C. M. Tuckett, “Zechariah 12:10 and the New Testament,” in The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence, ed. C. Tuckett (Burlington: Ashgate, 2003): 111–21.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 369.
461 M. J. J. Menken, “The Textual Form and the Meaning of the Quotation from Zechariah 12:10 in John 19:37,” CBQ 55 (1993): 494–511.
462 C. M. Tuckett, “Zechariah 12:10 and the New Testament,” in The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence, ed. C. Tuckett (Burlington: Ashgate, 2003): 111–21.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 369.
11절) 그날에 예루살렘안에 슬픔이 있을 것인데 므깃도 평야 하다드림몬을 위한 슬픔과 같이 클 것이다.(므깃도에서의 요시야 왕의 죽음을 애통해하는 것으로 보는 의견이 지배적이다.)
본문의 하다드림몬이 무엇을 의미하는지 의견이 분분하다. 첫째로는 아합의 죽음(왕상 22:34)을 나타낸다고도 하고 둘째로 이방 우상의 죽음을 슬퍼하는 예식이라고도 하는데 우가릭 문서에 따르면 하다드는 가나안의 폭풍의 신으로, 림몬은 앗수르의 폭풍 신이라고 한다. 셋째로 지역명이라는 의견이 있는데 이는 요시야 왕의 죽음을 나타내는 므깃도의 다른 이름일 것이라는 것이다.(왕하 23:228-30; 대하 35:21-25)
- One approach takes Hadad Rimmon as the name of an individual person, in which case the translation might mention mourning “for” or “over” Hadad Rimmon, as in the RSV: “the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon” (cf. REB “over”). As a variant of this viewpoint, some have made this Hadad Rimmon responsible for the death of Ahab (1 Kgs 22:34).467 Ancient historical accounts leave no record of a person with this name.
A second interpretation views Hadad Rimmon as a reference to a Canaanite religious festival that mourned the ritual death of the god.468 Hadad does occur as the name of a Canaanite storm god in the Ugaritic Texts.469 Rimmon may be related to the Assyrian storm god Ramimu, otherwise known as Adad.470 In a related view, Ramman may have been an Aramean deity.471 For still another take on the question, the wailing in Hadad Rimmon may refer to weeping for the Babylonian god Tammuz (Ezek 8:14–15). In an era when biblical prophets had long focused their efforts on attacking every vestige of paganism, it is difficult to understand why Zechariah would make such an overt parallel between a pagan mourning ritual and the appropriate sorrow felt by God’s people for their role in the piercing of the Messiah.
A third interpretation treats Hadad Rimmon as a place name.472 The suggestion makes sense in the context. Further, the qualifying phrase, “in the plain of Megiddo,” may have differentiated one Hadad Rimmon from another, although this observation cannot be proven. Since King Josiah was slain in the valley of Megiddo (2 Kgs 23:28–30), a reference to the Megiddo valley might evoke powerful memories of profound national grief. The reference to mourning for the death of Josiah in 2 Chr 35:21–25 may add further significance to the mention of Megiddo, but this notion is conjectural.473 Since no record of a place bearing this name survives, interpretative certainty remains out of reach. Nonetheless, the place name viewpoint offers the most promising solution.
REB Revised English Bible
467 Surveyed by Baldwin, Zechariah, 193.
468 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 343–44.
469 UT, § 749.
470 W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972), 2:950.
471 J. C. Greenfield, “The Aramean God Ramman/Rimmon,” IEJ 26 (1976): 195–98.
472 NJPS translates “at Hadad-rimmon.” For a thorough survey of the development of this interpretation, see Mitchell, Zechariah, 332–33.
473 For possible New Testament appropriation of Zech 12:11, see J. Day, “The Origin of Armageddon: Revelation 16:16 as an Interpretation of Zechariah 12:11,” in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder, ed. S. E. Porter, P. Joyce, and D. E. Orton (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 315–26.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 370–371.
A second interpretation views Hadad Rimmon as a reference to a Canaanite religious festival that mourned the ritual death of the god.468 Hadad does occur as the name of a Canaanite storm god in the Ugaritic Texts.469 Rimmon may be related to the Assyrian storm god Ramimu, otherwise known as Adad.470 In a related view, Ramman may have been an Aramean deity.471 For still another take on the question, the wailing in Hadad Rimmon may refer to weeping for the Babylonian god Tammuz (Ezek 8:14–15). In an era when biblical prophets had long focused their efforts on attacking every vestige of paganism, it is difficult to understand why Zechariah would make such an overt parallel between a pagan mourning ritual and the appropriate sorrow felt by God’s people for their role in the piercing of the Messiah.
A third interpretation treats Hadad Rimmon as a place name.472 The suggestion makes sense in the context. Further, the qualifying phrase, “in the plain of Megiddo,” may have differentiated one Hadad Rimmon from another, although this observation cannot be proven. Since King Josiah was slain in the valley of Megiddo (2 Kgs 23:28–30), a reference to the Megiddo valley might evoke powerful memories of profound national grief. The reference to mourning for the death of Josiah in 2 Chr 35:21–25 may add further significance to the mention of Megiddo, but this notion is conjectural.473 Since no record of a place bearing this name survives, interpretative certainty remains out of reach. Nonetheless, the place name viewpoint offers the most promising solution.
REB Revised English Bible
467 Surveyed by Baldwin, Zechariah, 193.
468 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 343–44.
469 UT, § 749.
470 W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972), 2:950.
471 J. C. Greenfield, “The Aramean God Ramman/Rimmon,” IEJ 26 (1976): 195–98.
472 NJPS translates “at Hadad-rimmon.” For a thorough survey of the development of this interpretation, see Mitchell, Zechariah, 332–33.
473 For possible New Testament appropriation of Zech 12:11, see J. Day, “The Origin of Armageddon: Revelation 16:16 as an Interpretation of Zechariah 12:11,” in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder, ed. S. E. Porter, P. Joyce, and D. E. Orton (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 315–26.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 370–371.
12-14절) 온땅의 각 족속들의 애통함을 다루는데 다윗의 족속과 그들의 아내들, 나단의 족속과 아내들, 레위의 족속과 아내들, 시므이의 족속과 아내들, 그리고 남은 족속과 그들의 아내들이 모두 애통할 것을 말한다.
- The “house of David” refers to the entire dynastic line as it does in 12:7, 8, 10, but “the house of Nathan” represents one of the few questions in this section of chap. 12. The uncertainty arises from the number of individuals named Nathan in the Old Testament, numbering at least seven. Nathan the prophet offers an attractive option (2 Sam 11–12) since he would represent the prophetic tradition and their culpability for the sin against the Lord. However, nowhere in the Old Testament can one detect evidence of a prophetic dynasty.475 Consequently, it is quite unlikely that a “house of Nathan” could signify Nathan the prophet. As a result, most conclude that Nathan in 12:12 refers to David’s son (2 Sam 5:14; 1 Chr 3:5; cf. Luke 3:31).
“The house of Levi” (v. 13) represents the whole priestly clan in a similar way that “the house of David” stands for the entire royal line. Following this interpretation, the priests joined the royal house in conspiring against the martyr. The priests also served as accomplices with the king in their attack on Jeremiah (Jer 37:15; 38:4). Numbers 3:18 states that Levi had a son named Shimei, presumably the same individual mentioned here in v. 13. If “Nathan” in v. 12 speaks of David’s son, then Zechariah lists two representatives of the royal line and two who stand for the priesthood in Judah.
Zechariah began his catalog of mourners with the royal line and the priests to charge these two groups with the greatest responsibility for the crime against the martyred Messiah. Yet despite the role the social leaders played in the death of the Messiah, Zechariah clearly stated that all in society bore responsibility for the deed. Unger concludes that “the sorrow will be for sin, and deep personal and national iniquity in putting to death the One who was resurrected and has the keys of hell and death.”476
475 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 346.
476 Unger, Zechariah, 219.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 371–372.The “house of David” refers to the entire dynastic line as it does in 12:7, 8, 10, but “the house of Nathan” represents one of the few questions in this section of chap. 12. The uncertainty arises from the number of individuals named Nathan in the Old Testament, numbering at least seven. Nathan the prophet offers an attractive option (2 Sam 11–12) since he would represent the prophetic tradition and their culpability for the sin against the Lord. However, nowhere in the Old Testament can one detect evidence of a prophetic dynasty.475 Consequently, it is quite unlikely that a “house of Nathan” could signify Nathan the prophet. As a result, most conclude that Nathan in 12:12 refers to David’s son (2 Sam 5:14; 1 Chr 3:5; cf. Luke 3:31).
“The house of Levi” (v. 13) represents the whole priestly clan in a similar way that “the house of David” stands for the entire royal line. Following this interpretation, the priests joined the royal house in conspiring against the martyr. The priests also served as accomplices with the king in their attack on Jeremiah (Jer 37:15; 38:4). Numbers 3:18 states that Levi had a son named Shimei, presumably the same individual mentioned here in v. 13. If “Nathan” in v. 12 speaks of David’s son, then Zechariah lists two representatives of the royal line and two who stand for the priesthood in Judah.
Zechariah began his catalog of mourners with the royal line and the priests to charge these two groups with the greatest responsibility for the crime against the martyred Messiah. Yet despite the role the social leaders played in the death of the Messiah, Zechariah clearly stated that all in society bore responsibility for the deed. Unger concludes that “the sorrow will be for sin, and deep personal and national iniquity in putting to death the One who was resurrected and has the keys of hell and death.”476
475 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 346.
476 Unger, Zechariah, 219.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 371–372.
“The house of Levi” (v. 13) represents the whole priestly clan in a similar way that “the house of David” stands for the entire royal line. Following this interpretation, the priests joined the royal house in conspiring against the martyr. The priests also served as accomplices with the king in their attack on Jeremiah (Jer 37:15; 38:4). Numbers 3:18 states that Levi had a son named Shimei, presumably the same individual mentioned here in v. 13. If “Nathan” in v. 12 speaks of David’s son, then Zechariah lists two representatives of the royal line and two who stand for the priesthood in Judah.
Zechariah began his catalog of mourners with the royal line and the priests to charge these two groups with the greatest responsibility for the crime against the martyred Messiah. Yet despite the role the social leaders played in the death of the Messiah, Zechariah clearly stated that all in society bore responsibility for the deed. Unger concludes that “the sorrow will be for sin, and deep personal and national iniquity in putting to death the One who was resurrected and has the keys of hell and death.”476
475 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 346.
476 Unger, Zechariah, 219.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 371–372.The “house of David” refers to the entire dynastic line as it does in 12:7, 8, 10, but “the house of Nathan” represents one of the few questions in this section of chap. 12. The uncertainty arises from the number of individuals named Nathan in the Old Testament, numbering at least seven. Nathan the prophet offers an attractive option (2 Sam 11–12) since he would represent the prophetic tradition and their culpability for the sin against the Lord. However, nowhere in the Old Testament can one detect evidence of a prophetic dynasty.475 Consequently, it is quite unlikely that a “house of Nathan” could signify Nathan the prophet. As a result, most conclude that Nathan in 12:12 refers to David’s son (2 Sam 5:14; 1 Chr 3:5; cf. Luke 3:31).
“The house of Levi” (v. 13) represents the whole priestly clan in a similar way that “the house of David” stands for the entire royal line. Following this interpretation, the priests joined the royal house in conspiring against the martyr. The priests also served as accomplices with the king in their attack on Jeremiah (Jer 37:15; 38:4). Numbers 3:18 states that Levi had a son named Shimei, presumably the same individual mentioned here in v. 13. If “Nathan” in v. 12 speaks of David’s son, then Zechariah lists two representatives of the royal line and two who stand for the priesthood in Judah.
Zechariah began his catalog of mourners with the royal line and the priests to charge these two groups with the greatest responsibility for the crime against the martyred Messiah. Yet despite the role the social leaders played in the death of the Messiah, Zechariah clearly stated that all in society bore responsibility for the deed. Unger concludes that “the sorrow will be for sin, and deep personal and national iniquity in putting to death the One who was resurrected and has the keys of hell and death.”476
475 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 346.
476 Unger, Zechariah, 219.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 371–372.
은혜는 자격없는 자에게 주시는 하나님의 사랑을 말한다. 그 은혜를 받기 위해서 전제 되어야 하는 것은 용서이다. 용서라는 것은 깨어진 관계를 회복하는 것이기 때문이다. 우리는 죄때문에 하나님과의 관계가 깨어졌고 그래서 하나님을 우리를 떠나셨다. 이제 용서를 구하는 것은 하나님께서 우리에게 돌아오실 것을, 그로 인해 우리가 하나님께로 돌아갈 것을 구하는 것이다. 그런 의미에서 스가랴는 하나님께서 돌아오셔서 자기 백성을 돌아오도록 부르고 계신다. 그분이 돌아오셔서 자신의 백성을 부르시고 성전을, 하나님의 나라를 새롭게 세우시겠다고 약속하고 계신다.
이처럼 하나님께서는 이미 예루살렘에 돌아오셨다. 이제 우리들이 하나님께로 돌아가야 한다. 돌아가기 위해서는 하나님게서 자기 백성을 부르시는 하나님의 음성, 목자의 음성, 하나님의 휘파람(10:8)을 들어야 한다. 그리고 우리가 해야할 일은 그분의 부름을 듣고 나아가 애통해하며 용서를 구하고, 그분의 은혜를 받아들이는 것이다.
'神學 > 神學資料' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 야콥 뵈메 (0) | 2022.11.18 |
|---|---|
| 토마스 Aquinas -Summa Theologiae (0) | 2022.11.12 |
| Paul Johannes Tillich (0) | 2022.10.18 |
| Thomas Aquinas (0) | 2022.10.06 |
| What is (the) Rapture??? (0) | 2022.10.05 |
