The Crown and the Temple
9 And the word of the Lord came to me: 10 “Take from the exiles xHeldai, Tobijah, and yJedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon, and go the same day to the house of Josiah, the son of zZephaniah. 11 Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, aand set it on the head of bJoshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 And say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is cthe Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and dhe shall build the temple of the Lord. 13 dIt is he who shall build the temple of the Lord eand shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there* shall be a fpriest on his throne, gand the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” ’ 14 And the crown shall be in the temple of the Lord as ha reminder to iHelem,2 jTobijah, jJedaiah, and Hen jthe son of Zephaniah.
15 k“And those who are far off shall come and lhelp to build the temple of the Lord. mAnd you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you. nAnd this shall come to pass, if you will diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God.”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 슥 6:9–15.
본문과 앞선 8가지 환상의 관계에 대해서 이견이 있다. 직접적인 관련이 없다라고 보는 견해도 있는가 하면 앞서 병거가 북쪽(바벨론)으로 가서 사로잡힌자중에 3명(헬대, 도비야, 여다야)이 돌아왔기에 하나님의 영의 성공적인 활동의 결과라고 볼 수도 있다. 또한 환상과 7장 이후의 신탁이 스가랴가 본 밤의 환상과 거의 2년의 시간적 공백이 있다고 보기에 본 장이 앞선 환상과 후반부의 신탁을 연결하는 연결고리의 역할을 한다고 본다.
- However, the themes in the eighth vision differ significantly enough from 6:9–15 that it becomes difficult to posit a direct connection between the two halves of chap. 6. Therefore, 6:9–15 was probably written at a later time in Zechariah’s ministry. Yet, moving beyond chap. 6, the oracles beginning in 7:1 date almost two years after Zechariah’s night visions. Thus, one can hardly assign 6:9–15 to these latter oracles. So, the oracle focusing on Joshua’s crown cannot be tied too closely to either the preceding or following sections of the book of Zechariah. Instead, the section on Joshua’s crown serves as a structural hinge for Zechariah, linking two major sections of the book.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 196.
9-10절) 본문은 친숙한 패턴 “여호와의 말씀이 내게 임하여 이르시되”로 시작된다.(4:8; 7:4; 8:1, 18) 또한 다른 내용과 다르게 환상을 해석하는 천사가 존재하지 않는다. 10절에 바벨론에서 돌아온 헬대와 도비야, 여다야가 누구 인지는 명확하지 않다. 성경에 이전에 등장하는 인물들과 동일인인지 아니면 조상의 이름을 다시 후대가 사용하는 풍습에 따른 이름인지 확실하지 않다.
- Zechariah likely mentioned these exiles in v. 10 because of their importance. If the nouns do serve as proper names, the identity of Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah remains a mystery. Even though the same names appear elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, most of the other occurrences cannot refer to the figures in v. 10.
The only other Heldai in the Old Testament is in a list of David’s warriors (1 Chr 27:15).
Tobijah represents a relatively common yet important name in the era. Ezra 2:60 mentions a Tobijah, but Ezra also indicates that since Tobijah could not trace his genealogy, he could not serve as a priest (2:59, 62). The Tobijahs in Ezra 2 and Zech 6 are probably different individuals.5 Another Tobijah appears in Neh 2:10, 19.6
Significantly, an influential family descended from one named Tobijah who lived during the Hasmonean period.7 A rock hewn cave in the Transjordan region preserved Aramaic inscriptions bearing the name Tobijah. Mazar dates these inscriptions to the era of Zechariah the prophet and identifies this Tobijah as the one in Zech 6:10.8 However, Frank Cross challenges Mazar’s dating of the Aramaic inscription and its identification with Tobijah in v. 10.9
Likewise, the name Jedaiah occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament (Ezra 2:36; Neh 7:39; 11:10; 12:6–7, 19, 21; 1 Chr 9:10). While the Jedaiah in v. 10 may not be the same individual as mentioned in other passages, the practice of naming individuals after one of their male ancestors suggests that the figure mentioned in v. 10 may be related to the other Jedaiahs. Mazar concludes that the absence of lineage with the names of Tobijah and Jedaiah indicates that they belonged to such well known families that listing lineages was superfluous.10 Since Mazar’s understanding lacks evidence, it is basically an argument from silence.
Zechariah’s selection of truly renowned individuals to contribute to the restoration effort and to witness the solemn ceremony underscores the political and religious importance of the prophet’s action.11 The involvement of such conspicuous people must have exerted great influence over the community and left a lasting impression.
5 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 1–8, 341; see J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 382–85.
6 One of the Lachish letters also mentions a Tobijah (letter 3, line 19), but nothing more is known of his identity.
7 B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 117.
8 B. Mazar, “The ‘Tobiads’,” IEJ 7 (1957): 137–41.
9 F. M. Cross, Jr., “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. G. E. Wright, reprint ed. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1979), 195, n. 75.
10 Mazar, “Tobiads,” 229.
11 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 1–8, 342.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 196–197.
도비야, 여다야, 요시아 이 세사람의 이름의 공통점은 그들의 이름중에 하나님을 상징하는 “야”라는 접미어가 사용된 것이다. 이스라엘 백성들의 이름이 상징하는 의미가 중요하지만 동시에 너무 성급하게 이를 일반화 하는 것은 문제가 될 수 있다. 하지만 당시 포로기 이후에 백성들 사이에 이러한 여호와에 대한 신앙의 표현으로 자신들의 이름에 이러한 고백을 담았다라고 볼 수 있다.
- Three out of four of the personal names listed in v. 10—Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Josiah—contain the theophoric element Yah in their name, an abbreviation for Yahweh. This theophoric component in these proper names suggests a measure of genuine faith in the Lord among the general populace of those returning from Babylon. One must use caution not to attribute too much significance to these theophoric elements when seeking to discern more information about a specific individual, however. While the divine elements indicated faith in the Lord among the community at large, the names do not prove that the individual men themselves evidenced exemplary measures of faith.13 The fact that these individuals returned to the land of promise offers the best indication of their faith in the Lord and their confidence in the covenant that their God had made with their forefathers and with them.
13 Contra M. F. Unger, Commentary on Zechariah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 110–11.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 198.
모세가 애굽으로부터 가져온 금과 은을 성막 건설을 위하여 받은 것처럼, 스가랴도 이처럼 모세의 역할을 감당해 새로운 성전 건설을 위하여 금과 은을 받았다고 보기도 한다.
- Tollington notes parallels between the return from the Babylonian exile and Israel’s departure from Egypt during the exodus.23 Moses accepted offerings of silver and gold that the Israelites received as plunder from their Egyptian captors for use in the construction of the tabernacle (Exod 25:1–3; 30:11–16; Num 7). Likewise, Zechariah accepted offerings for the construction of the new temple. In this way, God identifies Zechariah with none other than Moses. Zechariah’s dual roles parallel the multiple roles or offices held by Samuel (1 Sam 9:1–10:16), Zadok (1 Kgs 1:38–40), and Jehoiada (2 Kgs 11:12).24
23 Tollington, Tradition and Innovation, 123.
24 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 630.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 199.
스가랴는 스바냐의 아들 요시아의 집에서 그들을 만나야했다. 스바냐는 옛 예루살렘 성전에서 활동한 부제사장이었고(왕하 25:18) 동시에 성전 감독 책임을 맡은 제사장이었다.(렘 29:25, 29; 21:1; 37:3) 그렇다면 요시아는 유명한 제사장 가문의 아들이었다. 스바냐는 예루살렘에 남아있었던 자였고 그의 집을 방문한 사람들은 바벨론에서 귀환한 사람들이었다. 스가랴는 지금 이 두부류의 통합을 주도하며 성전재건을 힘쓰고 있는 것이다.
11절) 앞서 바벨론으로부터 돌아온 이들에게 은과 금을 받아서 면류관을 만들어 여호사닥의 아들 대제사장인 여호수아의 머리에 씌웠다. 본문의 면류관이 복수로 사용된 것에 대해서 이견이 있다. 두개를 만들어서 하나는 여호수아에게 주고 나머지 하나는 14절에 여호와의 전안에 두었다는 의견도 있고, 구약에 이렇게 복수로 사용된 명사에 단수 동사가 사용된 경우도 있기도 하다. 또한 장엄의 복수로 사용되었다고 보기도 한다.
- Mitchell, following a long line of critical reinterpretations of Zech 6, concludes that the text originally read “Zerubbabel” where “Joshua” now stands in v. 11.35 This critical reconstruction argues that after Zerubbabel died, his influence waned to such an extent that a zealous scribe replaced his name with “Joshua” in order to enhance the latter’s social standing. Mitchell’s view runs counter to the historical assessment of Zerubbabel’s prominence, not to mention the highly conservative scribal attitudes toward revising the sacred text.
The crowning of Joshua in v. 11 does not represent his investiture as a high priest since he had already been serving in that office.36 Placing a crown upon Joshua conferred honor on him for the pivotal role he played in the inauguration of worship during the restoration.37 While Zech 4:6–10 stresses the heightened role Zerubbabel had in the postexilic community, the crowning of Joshua also emphasized the momentous role the high priest had played in fulfilling the Lord’s promises to his people. Beyond the honor accorded to Joshua, the crowning served as a sign of God’s resolve to fulfill his promise to send a future leader to his people. Hence, Joshua’s crowning prefigured the elevated status of the coming “Branch” who would usher in the Lord’s eschatological kingdom.38
35 Mitchell, Zechariah, 185–86.
36 Floyd, Minor Prophets, 407.
37 Petitjean mentions the possibility that the crowning of Joshua might signal a political break between Joshua and Zerubbabel (Proto-Zacharie, 282–86). The further implication, that the crowning ceremony represents an attempt to mend a rift between the prophetic office represented by Zechariah and the priestly one Joshua fills, proves baseless (see Cohen, Twelve Prophets, 293).
38 Tollington, Tradition and Innovation, 168; see W. H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period, JSOTSup 304 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 159.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 200–201.
또한 원래 성전건축의 임무는 스룹바벨에게 주어진 것인데(슥 4:8-10) 면류관은 여호수아에게 씌어주고 있다.
12절) 싹이라 이름하는 사람이 자기 자리에서 돋아나서 여호와의 성전을 건축할 것이다라고 말씀하셨다. 여기서 싹(the Branch)가 누구이냐에 대해서 다양한 논의가 있다. 본문은 일차적으로 스룹바벨을 이야기하고(슥 4:8-10) 나아가 앞선 여호수아라고 보기도 한다(슥 4:14). 또한 장래에 다윗의 뿌리에서 나오는 메시야를 상징한다고도 본다.(사 11:1) / 그런데 본문의 흐름상 스룹바벨이 아닌 여호수아가 순의 역할을 상징적으로 대신하고 있다. 스룹바벨은 당시 사람들이 그에게 걸었던 기대에 부응하지 못하고(학 2:20-23) 성전이 왕선되기전 역사의 무대에서 갑자기 물러간 것 같다. 따라서 하나님은 여호와의 전을 건축하는 일을 완성할 자로 스룹바벨이 아닌 다른 싹이 날것을 예고하신다. 스룹바벨의 이름의 의미가 ‘바벨론의 순’인것과는 달리 ‘자기 속에서 돋아나는 순’이 언급되는데 이 ‘유다의 싹’은 이후에 나타날 것이기에 그의 대리자로 상징적으로 여호수아에게 면류관을 씌우라는 것이다.
- Verse 12 prophesies that the “Branch” will come and rebuild the temple (cf. 3:8).40 From at least the time of the Jewish Targums, Zechariah’s “Branch” has been interpreted as a messianic appellation, even though the passage initially addresses Zerubbabel. Since 4:9–10 explicitly states that Zerubbabel will begin and complete the temple of the restoration era, the prophet appears to envision a much broader application than Zerubbabel’s labors alone could fulfill.
The temple serves as a place where the Lord meets his people to atone for their sins. Providing the possible background to v. 12, Isaiah associates the ministry of the Lord’s “Branch” with the fruitfulness of the land, survivors of a calamity (probably the exile), and cleansing from sin: “In that day the Branch of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel.… The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem” (Isa 4:2, 4).
Jeremiah 23:5–6 also echoes the Isaianic theme of the Lord’s Branch:
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch,
a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land.
In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
The Lord Our Righteousness” (cf. 33:15–16).
The various passages from Isaiah and Jeremiah merge both royal and priestly offices into the messianism of the Branch.41 In Zech 3 the Branch’s priestly service receives emphasis. Nonetheless, while giving significant prominence to priestly matters (6:11, 13–15), chap. 6 also underscores the royal responsibilities. Baldwin summarizes the point of the passage: “His [Zechariah’s] hearers had been prepared for the Branch to fulfill priestly and kingly functions and therefore would realize that both Joshua and Zerubbabel contributed to the work of the coming Branch, while neither alone adequately represented him.”42
Consequently, no contemporary of Zechariah could fully satisfy the sweeping prophecies about the Branch’s ministry. On the one hand, the phrase in context does speak of the ministry of Zerubbabel and Joshua. Consequently, it is wrong for Unger to view this text as though it were exclusively messianic, with no application in Zechariah’s time.43 However, in light of the broader messianic application of the Branch concept, it would seem reasonable to claim that the imagery ultimately points to the person of Christ. A typological understanding fits both the immediate and broader canonical contexts well.
40 The NIV rendering, “Here is the man,” should read more literally, “Behold the man” (הִנֵּה־אִישׁ), and Pilate’s similar statement in John 19:5 is an allusion, albeit unwitting.
41 See Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel; and Rose, “Messianic Expectations in the Early Post-Exilic Period,” TynBul 49 (1998): 373–76.
42 Baldwin, Zechariah, 135. See also Joyce G. Baldwin, “S\emah\ as a Technical Term in the Prophets,” VT 14 (1964): 93–97.
43 Unger, Zechariah, 112.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 201–202.
13절) 그가 여호와의 전을 건축하고 위엄을 갖추고 왕좌에 앉아서 다스릴 것이다. 또한 제사장이 그 옆에 서서 함께 평화롭게 의논하며 일할 것이다. 본문은 왕과 제사장이 함께 평화롭게 통치하는 모습을 상징한다. 앞서 스룹바벨과 여호수아가 함께 기름부음 받은 자(4:14)로 왕권과 제사장권을 상징하는 것으로 볼 수 있다. 하지만 궁극적으로 다윗의 뿌리에서 나오는 메시야로 연결시키는것이 합당하다.
- Moreover, v. 13 begins with the emphatic pronoun “he,” indicating that the Branch, not Joshua or Zerubbabel, will ultimately rebuild the temple. The preceding visions lay great emphasis on the role Zerubbabel played in the reconstruction of the temple. Verse 13 dramatically begins by pointing to another figure whose significance would surpass even that of Zerubbabel.
Some suggest that this verse, as well as chap. 3, introduces a diarchy into the political situation in ancient Judah.53 Verse 13 appears to address Joshua the high priest, but it also includes royal motifs not associated with the priesthood. To lessen this tension, several commentators suggest that v. 13 speaks to Joshua and Zerubbabel together. This interpretation yields the following:
And he (Zerubbabel) shall build the temple,
and he (Joshua) shall put on splendor,
and he (Zerubbabel) shall sit and rule upon his throne;
and he (Joshua) shall be priest upon his throne;
and a counsel of peace shall be between them.54
This innovative approach attempts to solve a pressing problem in the passage: How can a priest and king both sit on the throne? One must take liberties with the text to defend the notion of a diarchy, a concept that neither biblical nor historical sources support. Further, v. 13 does not give any basis for concluding that both Joshua and Zerubbabel are present, with Zechariah addressing each sequentially in v. 13. While the Old Testament does not merge the offices of priest and king, with the exception of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18–20; Ps 110:4), the coalescence of both becomes a prominent theme in the New Testament, fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus Christ (Heb 4:14–16; 7; 8:1; cf. Rev 20:4–6).
53 Tollington, Tradition and Innovation, 175; Conrad, Zechariah, 126. Tollington adds that the diarchic ruler served a short-term objective, enabling the people to cohere as a community and to ready themselves for a new age when the Branch would take the reins of the Lord’s kingdom. Rose offers compelling arguments against the diarchy view (Zemah and Zerubbabel, 169–70). Rose’s more important arguments include the absence of evidence supporting an equal position of authority for the royal figure and priest, the lack of mention of either Zerubbabel or Joshua in Ezra 6, and the lack of reference to the high priest in the covenant renewal ceremony in Neh 10.
54 P. R. Ackroyd, Zechariah (London: Nelson, 1962), 649.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 203–204.
14절) 면류관은 왕권을 상징하는데 하나님께서 약속하신대로 당신의 백성을 회복시키실 것에 대한 약속의 성취를 의미하는 것으로 볼수 있다. 이렇게 만들어진 면류관을 여호와의 전에 두어 이 면류관을 만드는데 도움을 준 사람들을 기념하라고 말씀하신다. 그런데 14절에 등장하는 이름 헬렘, 도비야, 여다야와 스바냐의 아들 헨은 10절에 등장하는 이름과 상이하다. 일반적으로 학자들은 헬렘을 헬대로, 헨을 요시아로 다르게 기록한 것으로 보고 있다.
15절) 결국 먼데 있는 사람들이 와서 여호와의 전을 건축할 것이고 스가랴가 여호와께서 보내신 참 선지자임을 알게 될 것이며 여호와의 말씀에 순종할때 이와같은 회복이 이루어 질 것임을 선포하고 있다. 여기서 먼데 있는 사람들은 바벨론에 흩어져 있는 유대인들 뿐만 아니라 비유대인들도 포함된다. 결국 신명기, 구약에서 말하는 언약의 순종을 통해서 회복이 일어날 것을 말한다.
- The ending of v. 15, “if you diligently obey the Lord your God,” appears to quote Deut 28:1, the influential Deuteronomic chapter outlining the blessings and curses awaiting Israelites who choose either to obey or to disobey the Lord. Using emphatic language, Zechariah evokes the memory of everything Deut 28 represents. The passage also echoes the eschatological theme of Hag 2:7 (see also Mic 4:1–2). Further, the prophet’s words recall the new covenant in Jer 31:33–34 where the people of God obey their Lord from their hearts.
Thus ends Zechariah’s initial prophecies, which began in 1:7, concerning the restoration of worship in the rebuilt temple. Sweeney observes that Zech 6:1–15 “concludes the prophet’s vision reports in 1:7–6:15 by pointing to the crowning of the Branch and the building of the Temple as signs of the ultimate restoration of Zion.”63 For millennia, biblical writers and theologians alike have understood the central role Zion will enjoy as the seat of God’s eschatological reign.
63 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 623. See M. J. Boda, “Oil, Crowns and Thrones: Prophet, Priest and King in Zechariah 1:7–6:15,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 3 (2001), journal on-line (accessed 29 November 2005; available from http://purl.org/jhs; Internet). Boda discusses the purpose of Zech 1–6, with special attention to the question of Zechariah’s agenda in correcting leadership problems in his day and looking forward to the coming Messiah. Boda views Zech 1–6 as an indictment of the priestly tradition, assuring the readers that the Branch will correct priestly excesses.
George L. Klein, Zechariah, vol. 21B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 206.