Tag Archives: prophesy

Ezekiel 38:1-23 Who is Gog and Magog?

2 Replies

Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying (Ezekiel 38:1 NASB 1995)

This oracle is given to Ezekiel, and its contents are covered in both chapter 38 and 39.

“Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him (Ezekiel 38:2)

Son of man. Son of man here probably is meant to contrast between the human condition of Ezekiel and the transcendent majesty of God. This contrasts with the usage of “Son of man” in Daniel 7:13-14, which appear to be Messianic.

Set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. Ezekiel is commanded to orient himself toward Gog, who is presented as a person, from the land of Magog. The people of Magog are direct descendants of Japheth, one of three sons of Noah (Genesis 10:1-2). Gog rules over more than one people (Tubal and Meshech), who are also descendants from the fifth and sixth sons of Japheth (1 Chronicles 1:5). Hence, Ezekiel likely has in view the peoples to the far north of the land of Israel (in modern day terms, the land area appears to be modern-day Turkey). Because the Hebrew term rosh (“chief”) in verse 1 sounds similar to the name Russia, some believe that Ezekiel 38 predicts modern Russia’s rise and influence. However, the context suggests that everyone in Ezekiel’s day would have been familiar with these nations (Ezek. 38:17), so there is no reason to assume that the nations listed in Ezekiel 38 are actually the geographical equivalent of modern nations.2 

And prophesy against him. Ezekiel is to foretell Gog’s ruin and destruction. 

But who is Gog? Various names have been suggested, such as Cambyses, king of Persia, Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, Gyges, a Lydian king, among others, as possible historical fulfillments for Gog, though it is uncertain if these identities are the best fits. Dispensationalists interpret Gog as a future ruler from a coalition of nations, including Russia, Turkey, Iran, Sudan, and Libya (Algeria/Tunisia), who comes against modern day Israel near the midpoint of a supposed Tribulation.

However, there appears to be another ruler who fits the description of Gog. He is Haman, who attempted to annihilate the Jews in the book of Esther (Esther 3:12-14). Since Gog is identified as a “chief prince”, Gog may be a fitting description of Haman, who was not the king of Persia, but rather was a high-ranking official or perhaps, 2nd in charge over 127 provinces of the Persian Empire (Esther 1:1; Esther 3:13). Moreover, in Esther 3:1 and 9:24, Haman is referred to as an “Agagite.” He was a descendant of Agag, who was the king of Amalekites. The term “Agag” and “Gog” appear similar at face value, and they are equated in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Numbers 24:7 LXX reads, “There shall come a man out of [Israel’s] seed, and he shall rule over many nations. The kingdom of Gog shall be exalted, and his kingdom shall be increased”. In fact, some Septuagint manuscripts say that Haman was a “Gogite,” instead of an “Agagite,” at Esther 3:1 and Esther 9:24 (Lewis B. Paton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther, page 194).Clearly, there is an ancient connection between the titles of “Agag” and “Gog”. Moreover, “Gog” could well have been used as a title for the kings of the Amalekites, much like how “Pharaoh” was a title for the kings of Egypt.

[How could we explain Gog’s relationship with Japhethic territories, if he is a descendant of Amalekites? The Amalekites may not be the descendants of Amalek, the grandson of Esau (also known as Edomites) (Gen. 36:12,16) since it appears that the Amalekites were already a major force to contend with in the days of Abraham (Gen. 14:7). Furthermore, the Amalekites who were under God’s curse in Exodus and following were said to be the “first (tyvar) of the nations” (Numb. 24:20). If they are identified with Magog, this may makes sense].

Is there further evidence that Haman is Gog from the context of chapter 38 and 39? Continuing from next verse.

This is what the Lord God says: “Behold, I am against you, Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal (Ezekiel 38:3)

Ezekiel was to announce that Yahweh was opposed to Gog, implication being that God is declaring war against Gog, whose evil scheme is to annihilate God’s people.

So I will turn you around and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them magnificently dressed, a great contingent with shield and buckler, all of them wielding swords (Ezekiel 38:4)

The Lord would reverse the fortunes of this ruler, take him under His control, and bring him and his vast, impressive army and power he exercises over them out into the open.  Putting hooks in his jaws pictures control that Gog would not be able to resist, emphasizing God is the one who is orchestrating this battle.  Gog’s arsenal is said to be armed with swords, clubs, spears, and bows and arrows, and they invade by riding horses while carrying shields. These descriptions could not apply to a future war in our modern day or future time, but rather it appears that the prophet has ancient war in mind. Usually, dispensationalist assert that “bows and arrows,” “clubs,” “spears,” and “swords” really refer to machine guns, rifles, pistols, etc., but this spiritualization or allegorizing of the text undermines the fundamental premise of their position, which is that this text must be interpreted literally. In the Book of Esther, we are told that Haman had command over “all the king’s provinces to destroy, to kill and to annihilate all the Jews, both young and old, women and children, in one day” (Esther 3:12,14).

Persia, Cush, and Put with them, all of them with buckler and helmet; Gomer with all its troops; Beth-togarmah from the remote parts of the north with all its troops—many peoples with you (Ezekiel 38:5-6)

Gog is not alone. Ezekiel foresaw a day when Meshech and Tubal would also join with two other northern powers—Gomer and Beth-togarmah (all these northern powers are descendants of Japheth)—and this four would form an alliance with Cush (Ethiopia), Put (Libya), and Persia, which were three powers to the far south or southeast of the Promised Land. The sevenfold makeup of the enemy coalition suggests totality of the threat of evil that would rise up against the people of God.  Haman fits Gog here as well, as Meshech, Tubal, Magog, Togarmah, and Gomar were all nations within the Persian Empire, which he had control over during the time of Esther (Esther 3:12-14).3 

“Be ready, and be prepared, you and all your contingents that are assembled around you, and be a guard for them (Ezekiel 38:7)

Gog is admonished to get ready with his alliances. Guard and guide them, but it would be all in vain. Hence, the implication is Gog, be ready for your downfall!

After many days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will come into the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel which had been a continual place of ruins; but its people were brought out from the nations, and they are living securely, all of them (Ezekiel 38:8)

After many days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will come. The expression “after many days” indicate that what is predicted is yet in the future from the time of Ezekiel and it is synonymous with the “latter years” . The idiom “latter years” do not refer to future end times, but the contextual “end”, which is the prophet’s own “eschatological horizon” which is clarified in the next clause. Gog will come at the latter time from days of Ezekiel. When is that time?

Into the land that is restored from the sword. Gog will come into the land, when it is being recovered from the sword of their enemies. This appears to be a time when Israel started to return to their land after the Babylonian exile.

Whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel which had been a continual place of ruins. People who were once scattered over many nations (due to the Babylonian captivity), are now brought back to the mountains of Israel, which were desolated continually due to enemy sieges. We are told that Gog would come shortly after Israel returned from exile. Since modern Israel does not fit the description of Ezekiel 38, it appears the timeframe of Gog’s invasion is shortly after Israel returned from Babylonian exile in approximately 537 BC during the reign of the Persian Empire.

But its people were brought out from the nations, and they are living securely, all of them. Gog will come at a time when the people are been regathered, and they dwell securely. Some Jews had returned to Jerusalem, though others were still scattered over the 127 provinces of Persia ranging from India to Ethiopia and everywhere else (Esther 8:9). Persian empire was much kinder to the Jews unlike its predecessor, the Babylonian empire, and this fits with the idea of Jews living securely. Moreover, in Esther, the fighting occurs in every province. In Ezekiel, though we see a focus on the land of Israel, but Ezekiel also indicates that “all the nations will see My judgment” (Ezek. 39:21) and God will “send fire upon Magog and those who inhabit the coastlands in safety” (Ezek. 39:6). Hence, both passages portray the fight universally, and not just in the land of Israel.

And you will go up, you will come like a storm; you will be like a cloud covering the land, you and all your troops, and many peoples with you. (Ezekiel 38:9)

Gog and his bands shall come like a storm that overspreads the whole land like a cloud, as they come against God’s people. The book of Esther shows that all people in all the land were ready to act on God’s people no sooner the command went forth (Esther 3:14)

‘This is what the Lord God says: “It will come about on that day, that thoughts will come into your mind and you will devise an evil plan (Ezekiel 38:10)

On that day, Gog will entertain a malicious design for the destruction of God’s people. We are told that Haman had an “evil scheme” against Israel (Esther 8:3).

And you will say, ‘I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who are at rest, who live securely, all of them living without walls and having no bars or gates (Ezekiel 38:11)

Gog will go up against the people of God at a time they are dwelling safely, i.e., securely and confidently, in a land of un-walled villages, meaning a land of open places, as opposed to fortified cities, i.e., towns without walls, and having neither bars nor gates. In Esther, we learn that there were Jews who were living peacefully in “unwalled towns” (Esther 9:19 KJV) when Haman conspired against them. Hence, the battle of Ezekiel occurs when Jerusalem and the other towns where God’s people were living still had no walls. This rules out an interpretation in the days of the Maccabees or later, since Jerusalem has had walls ever since Nehemiah built them. However, at this point in Esther’s story, no walls have been built. Nehemiah has not yet started that work.

To capture spoils and to seize plunder, to turn your hand against the ruins that are now inhabited, and against the people who are gathered from the nations, who have acquired livestock and goods, who live at the center of the world (Ezekiel 38:11)

Gog’s motive is described here, and that is to seize upon the goods and plunder the substance of these people, who live at the center of the world (what may be meant is that the people of God have an exalted position, and are the center of attention, in reference to other nations, which Gog is envious about). Haman’s words suggest this. “There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from those of all other people and they do not observe the king’s laws..” (Esther 3:8). Moreover, we are told that Haman’s desire was exactly this, to “seize their possessions as plunder” (Esther 3:13).

Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish with all its villages will say to you, ‘Have you come to capture spoils? Have you assembled your contingent to seize plunder, to carry away silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods, to capture great spoils?’”’“Therefore prophesy, son of man, and say to Gog, ‘This is what the Lord God says: “On that day when My people Israel are living securely, will you not know it? 15 You will come from your place out of the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding horses, a large assembly and a mighty army; 16 and you will come up against My people Israel like a cloud to cover the land. It shall come about in the last days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me when I show Myself holy through you before their eyes, Gog.” (Ezekiel 38:12-16)

Sheba, and Dorian, and the merchants of Tarshish were the great trading communities of the South, East, and West respectively (Ezekiel 27:15, 20, 22, 25). All are depicted as following in the wake of Gog. By coming against Israel, who is living securely, and defenseless, Gog, and his well-equipped forces, is taking on Israel’s God; God says it is “My people”, “My land”, that Gog is assaulting. The only reason that Gog and his armies are brought against Israel is that the Lord will demonstrate His greatness and holiness before their eyes, by defeating them. The planned destruction of the Jews is reversed in both in Ezekiel and Esther and judgement comes upon the enemy (Ezek. 39:3; Esther 9:2).

‘This is what the Lord God says: “Are you the one of whom I spoke in former days through My servants the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those days for many years that I would bring you against them? (Ezekiel 38:17)

Gog and Magog cannot be a new people or modern day nations, who are unmentioned before the time of Ezekiel because earlier prophets had predicted such an invasion of Israel in a future time under the leadership of Gog. Haman appears to represents the ancient spiritual struggle between Amalekites and Israel (Ex. 17:8-16; Deut. 25:17-19). Hence, if Gog and Magog are Amalekites, then this verse makes more sense. Many prophets spoke of Amalek including Moses (Ex. 17:16), Balaam (Numb. 24:20), Samuel (1 Sam. 15:1-3,17-23), Deborah (Judges 5:14), Gideon (Judges 6-7), an unnamed prophet (Judges 10:11-14), David (1 Sam. 30) and Asaph (Psalm 83). They prophesied of multi-generational warfare in Exodus 17:16; Numb. 14:43; 24:20; Deut. 25:17-19; 1 Sam. 14:48; 15:18.

It will come about on that day, when Gog comes against the land of Israel,” declares the Lord God, “that My fury will mount up in My anger” (Ezekiel 38:18)

However, when Gog comes against Israel, he is coming not to bring judgement on Israel, but to be judged by God’s wrath.

In My zeal and in My blazing wrath I declare that on that day there will certainly be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the animals of the field, all the crawling things that crawl on the earth, and all mankind who are on the face of the earth will shake at My presence; and the mountains will be thrown down, the steep pathways will collapse, and every wall will fall to the ground.  (Ezekiel 38:19-20)

When God’s zeal and wrath is let loose on the enemies, it will be akin to a mighty earthquake that will cause the earth (land) and its creatures to tremble in His presence. In the Old Testament, earthquakes, mountains being thrown down, and turmoil among the enemy nations when God visits in judgement is not unusual. Such language is often used figuratively to describe the grandeur of the judgement. For instance, Micah speaks of “Mountains melting”, “Valley’s splitting” (Micah 1:4) for events that transpired before the first coming of the Messiah. Isaiah speaks of “every mountain and hill be made low” (Isaiah 40:4) in view of the first coming Messiah. In Isaiah 29:6, God’s visit accompanies thunder, earthquake and great noise, and flame of devouring fire on the enemies of Judah. Hence, it is not required to read this literally, as there is a precedent for interpreting some of these judgements symbolically.

And I will call for a sword against him on all My mountains,” declares the Lord God. “Every man’s sword will be against his brother.With plague and with blood I will enter into judgment with him; and I will rain on him and on his troops, and on the many peoples who are with him, a torrential rain, hailstones, fire, and brimstone. (Ezekiel 38:21-22)

The sword, plague (affliction), bloodshed, torrential rain, hailstones, fire and brimstone: These are alsoemblems and symbols of God’s presence, and of the judgments about to be executed on the persecutors (Isaiah 30:30; Psalms 11:6).

So I will prove Myself great, show Myself holy, and make Myself known in the sight of many nations; and they will know that I am the Lord.”’ (Ezekiel 38:23)

God will show His power, and holiness, not just by the destruction of Gog and his coalition, but by the protection of his restored people.

There is more evidence in Ezekiel 38 and 39 to show that Haman does fit the description of Gog. For instance, a) There are an enormous number of dead in both passages. (Ezek. 39:12-16; Esther 9:12-16). b) Both passages show that the Jews were authorized to plunder those who fought against them (Esther 8:11; Ezek. 39:10). c) The seven months wait in Ezekiel 39:12-16 is equivalent to the time from Purim till the Feast of Tabernacles when cleansing waters are made with the ashes of the heifer (Esther 9:26-32). d) Haman’s name appears in Ezekiel’s prophecy as Hamon (39:11,15,16). Again, this slight change in pronunciation (which is common with other names) can be explained by the language differences. The phrase, “the valley of Hamon of Gog” would then be equivalent to Haman of Agag (or “Haman the Agagite”).  d) Haman was hanged from the 50-cubit-high gallows (Esther 7:9-10), potentially becoming “food to every kind of predatory bird and beast of the field” (Ezekiel 39:4).3

See also:

  • Our chapter-by-chapter, verse-by-verse, commentaries on the book of Daniel, Revelation.

Referenced & Adapted

1. Duguid (1999). The NIV Application Commentary, Ezekiel

2. Peterson (2022). https://providencechristiannm.com/difficult-passage-ezekiel-38-part-1/

2. Kayser (2002). https://kaysercommentary.com/Sermons/Old%20Testament/Esther/battle%20of%20Ezek.md

Zechariah 13:1-9 Who is the shepherd who is struck?

3 Replies

Continuing on from our study of Zechariah 12:1-14 Is it Yahweh who is pierced. Here’s a study of chapter 13.

“In that day a fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for impurity” (Zechariah 13:1 NASB 1995)

In that day. The phrase ‘that day’ connects this verse with Zechariah 12:3, which we identified as the days of Messiah. Specifically, “that day” refers to the time when the Messiah came as a servant to be pierced or crucified.   

A fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The piercing of the Messiah (Zechariah 12:10) appears to have served as the reason for this spiritual “fountain” to be opened up for washing people’s sin and impurity. Hence, the scene at the end of Zechariah 12 of the whole community’s mourning (in repentance) for the “pierced” one shifts in Zechariah 13:1 to one of hope. A ‘fountain’ or ‘spring’ suggests an abundant supply of water (Ps. 36:9; Jer. 2:13), and the language indicates that this fountain will remain continuously open.

For sin and for impurity. “Sin” (ḥaṭṭā’t) is a more general term for human behavior that breaks God’s will (Deut. 9:18). “Impurity” (niddah) is a state that often results from amoral causes (e.g. childbirth or bodily emissions). Both unintentional sin and major impurity required ‘atonement’ through sacrifice, in the Old Covenant. Though there is no direct reference to sacrifice in this verse, the piercing of the Messiah (Zechariah 12:10) serves as the sacrifice for washing sin and impurity of people. Washing occurs as a literary figure of repentance and purification elsewhere in the prophets (Isa. 1:16; Jer. 2:22; Ezek. 16:9). This fits with the images of repentance in Zechariah 12:10–14, and the cleansing water of the new covenant in Ezekiel 36:25.1 Zechariah 13:1 affirms God’s desire to cleanse repentant people. The New Testament clarifies that through Jesus, ‘rivers of living water’ flow to believers (John 7:38).

“It will come about in that day,” declares the Lord of hosts, “that I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, and they will no longer be remembered; and I will also remove the prophets and the unclean spirit from the land. (Zechariah 13:2)

That I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, and they will no longer be remembered. Idolatry is associated with “impurity” (niddah) (Ezek. 36:17), which resulted in the dispersion of the Jews into exile (Ezekiel 36:16-21). As the previous verse shows, the “fountain” has been opened to cleanse people from such “impurity” (Zechariah 13:1). How would God cleanse people from such impurity? God will “cut off the names of the idols” from among people. The “name” is representative of the idol itself, which will be destroyed. The verb karat, to cut off or banish, is usually the punishment of the idolater, but the implication here appears to be people will banish the idols they serve with the transformation that comes to the community from looking up to the “pierced” one in repentance (Zechariah 12:10). The promise that these idols will “be remembered no more”, describes affection of the true worshiper. To remember is to serve a god, while to forget is to abandon it (Deut. 8:18–20). While it is true that modern Jewish and Gentile believers of Messiah are not often tempted to worship divine images, at the heart of idolatry is the pursuit of one’s agenda apart from reliance on and submission to God (Eph. 5:3–5). God promises to purify people from such idolatry following Messiah’s sacrifice.

And I will also remove the prophets and the unclean spirit from the land. Not only idols, but also their religious attendants, and promoters, the prophets, will be removed from the land. These false prophets are the focus of the final verses in Zechariah 13:3–6. Whereas God’s Spirit is associated explicitly with true prophecy (Zechariah 7:12), false prophecy is associated with ‘the unclean spirit’.

And if anyone still prophesies, then his father and mother who gave birth to him will say to him, ‘You shall not live, for you have spoken falsely in the name of the Lord’; and his father and mother who gave birth to him will pierce him through when he prophesies. (Zechariah 13:3)

The people will be so transformed by God that parents will enact the judgment against their own child. In Deuteronomy 13, there was to be no toleration of false prophecy connected with idolatry, as the people are commanded to put the person to death (Deuteronomy 13:5). In Numbers 25:8, an Israelite man and Midianite women, participating in idolatrous behavior through sexual intercourse, were “pierced” by Phinehas, grandson of Aaron the high priest. People “pierced” God, abandoning him through their idolatry, so now they will cleanse the land of idolatry by piercing their prophets. Zechariah speaks the above words using Old Covenant imagery and law in practice. Under the New Covenant, the idea is that God’s people will not tolerate false prophets, even the family of a false prophet would condemn the false prophet.

Also it will come about in that day that the prophets will each be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies, and they will not put on a hairy robe in order to deceive (Zechariah 13:4)

Those who had been false messengers of God would be ashamed of their message. They will put away the clothing of the prophets (a hairy robe) and earn an honest living, instead of deceiving people.

But he will say, ‘I am not a prophet; I am a tiller of the ground, for a man sold me as a slave in my youth.’ (Zechariah 13:5)

Those who posed as prophets will so fear exposure that they will deny ever having made such a claim. So eager would the false prophet be to hide his false pretense, that he would be willing to say, that he has been employed in farm work, and was sold as a slave from his youth.

And one will say to him, ‘What are these wounds between your arms?’ Then he will say, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.’ (Zechariah 13:5-6)

Without the hairy robe to cover his body, the false prophet will expose his “wounds”, though they try to conceal the truth, and pretend that they were wounds he had privately in his father’s family. Many conclude that this refers to wounds connected with illicit religious rites. The cutting of the body is linked to idolatrous practices connected with Baal religion (1 Kings 18:28) and the cult of the dead (Lev. 19:28). Some have argued that the ‘wounds between your hands’ are a reference to the suffering Messiah, however, the wounds their body bore appear to be because of false prophetic activity.  

The removal of idolatry and false prophecy portrayed in Zechariah 13:2–6 is a key concern for the people of God in view of Jesus’ death. Worshipping idols is one of the characteristics of ‘pagan’ living (1 Peter 4:3) and is associated with the acts of the ‘flesh’ (Gal. 5:20; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:5). While the judgment by the Old Covenant law on false prophets in the community is no longer directly applicable (i.e. their being put to death), Christians are to be intolerant of false teaching (2 Tim. 3:5; Rev. 2:20). In Revelation, the ‘false prophet’ does the work of the antichrist (16:13; 19:20; cf. 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7). The ‘false prophet’ is ultimately destroyed at Messiah’s second coming.

“Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, And against the man, My Associate,” Declares the Lord of hosts. “Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered; And I will turn My hand against the little ones (Zechariah 13:7)

“Awake, O sword. ‘Awake, O sword’ appears to begin a new oracle (given the vocative noun and imperfect verb with which it begins) but is still thematically connected to what preceded.The sword is a regular metaphor in prophetic literature, an image of death and judgment (Isa. 34:5–6; Ezek. 5:1).

Against My Shepherd, And against the man, My Associate,” Declares the Lord of hosts. This verse contains the final ‘shepherd’ reference in Zechariah and brings together the various strands concerning leadership (shepherds) that have been woven through the book of Zechariah to this point. Zechariah 10:3 expresses God’s anger against shepherds. Zechariah 10:17 envisions serious injury against the shepherd, and here (Zechariah 13:7), it advocates striking a fatal blow against the shepherd.

The sword is instructed to “strike” the Shepherd, who is called “my shepherd” and “My Associate”. Both phrases use the possessive pronoun “my,” emphasizing the close association between the Lord and this shepherd who is struck by the sword. The ancient Hebrew word for My Associate is used in Leviticus 6:2 and 18:20 to mean a “near neighbor.” My Associate describes someone who is more than a friend of the LORD; someone who “dwells side by side with the LORD, His equal.”3 While “my shepherd” could be used of God’s shepherds in general, “My associate” seems to render the reference definite, meaning a specific shepherd may be meant.  As for the image of the sword, because it is connected with God’s judgment, this Shepherd is apparently someone who is struck as a result of some offense. However, if there is such a close relationship between the shepherd and Yahweh, and Yahweh commands his death – then could it be that the shepherd suffers not for his own sins, but for the sins of others? Could it be that this shepherd is not a wayward shepherd?

If this verse is approached in isolation, it is not clear who the shepherd might be. It may appear that this is talking about Israel’s wayward leadership (given previous references to God’s anger against Shepherds, and reference to false prophets in Zechariah 13:2-6). Some have identified this Shepherd with the Zadokite priesthood because of the connection to idolatry in Zechariah 10:1–3. However, if this verse is read as an integral part of the book of Zechariah, then the referent should be found in what has gone before. Given the expectation of a future Davidic king to this point in Zechariah, including “My Servant the Branch” in Zechariah 3:8;6:12, the coming “king” of Zechariah 9:9, the “Cornerstone” of Zechariah 10:4 and the one who is “pierced” in Zechariah 12:10, it is entirely fitting to identify the “My Associate” as this future king and Messiah.

Several apocalyptic midrashim dating from the early to late first millennium AD cite Zechariah 13:9 in connection with the death of Messiah ben Joseph. This is not the victorious Messiah ben David, as per Jewish tradition, but the second Messiah figure who dies in a battle against Gog and Magog. When and how this second Messiah figure developed within Judaism is unclear. At the least, this shows that ancient Jewish scholars understood the concept of a future Messiah king who suffers and dies, and hence applying Zechariah 13:9 to Messiah is not a case of Christian eisegesis.

The New Testament uses Zechariah 13:7 to interpret the death of Christ and its effect on the disciples (Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27; cf. John 16:32). A difficulty can arise if the “shepherd” in Zechariah 13:7 is a reference to wayward leadership, which would be like placing Jesus into the role of inappropriate leadership that led Israel astray. However, this does not cause difficulty for Christian interpreters as the New Testament presents Jesus assuming the role of the covenant leader of the community, leading as a good shepherd (John 10:11) before taking on himself their sins and redeeming the community and its leadership. He is the good shepherd of Zechariah 11:4–16, rejected by his people in favor of a bad shepherd, taking the punishment of the bad shepherd in order to achieve the transformation expected throughout chapters 9–14 of Zechariah – which is the creation of a restored, united, and victorious “true Israel” as the center of God’s rule over the cosmos.

“Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered; And I will turn My hand against the little ones. Because of the loss of the shepherd, the flock will be scattered. This scattering leaves the “little ones” (Jer. 49:20; 50:45) open to discipline. The discipline comes from God, who turns his hand against them, a phrase used elsewhere to refer to his judgment (Ps. 81:14; Isa. 1:25; Ezek. 38:12; Amos 1:8). This indicates that God will discipline the flock (“little ones”) in order to purify them, which is described in Zechariah 13:8–9.

Jesus quoted the above phrase from Zechariah 13:7 in Matthew 26:31 as a reference to the scattering of His disciples during His arrest and suffering. The timing of the quote is also significant as it comes just after the Last Supper, where Jesus explains that his death will be for the forgiveness of sins and the establishment of the new covenant (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20). Jesus’ designation of his followers as ‘little ones’ (Matt. 10:42; 18:6, 10, 14; Mark 9:42) also appears to be against the backdrop of Zechariah 13:7.

“It will come about in all the land,” Declares the Lord, “That two parts in it will be cut off and perish; But the third will be left in it. (Zechariah 13:8)

The majority of the flock will be eliminated from the outset as two-thirds “will be struck down and perish.” The third survives but then undergoes further discipline. In context, ‘the land’ (hā’āreṣ) is best conceived as the region in which God’s people dwell (specifically the land of Israel), rather than the whole earth (Zechariah 12:12).

“And I will bring the third part through the fire, refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are My people,’ And they will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’” (Zechariah 13:9)

This verse reveals the result of the refining process in verse 8. The smiting of the Shepherd scattered the sheep, but the good Shepherd would turn his hand graciously to the lowly and insignificant (“the little ones”) to refine and gather them as the remnant. That the Lord calls them “my people” and the people identify the Lord as “my God” is covenant language expressing a reconciled relationship. Jeremiah 31:33 uses this language to speak of the ‘new covenant’ and it is natural to associate Zechariah’s hope with this. Dispensationalists believe these verses refer to a future 7-year tribulation. However, the context of the previous verses and language of a “new covenant” (Hebrews 8:13) suggests that we may be looking at the early days following Jesus’ resurrection, and the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. We cannot be certain unless we review Zechariah 14 to see if the biblical language leads us to such an immediate fulfillment.  

See also:

  • Our chapter-by-chapter, verse-by-verse, commentaries on the book of Daniel, Revelation.

Referenced and adapted

1.    Petterson, A (2015). Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi (Apollos Old Testament Commentary)

2.    Boda, M (2004). The Haggai, Zechariah NIV Application Commentary

3.    David Guzik. https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/zechariah-13/

Isaiah 7:14: Is it really about Jesus or someone else?

4 Replies

Matthew 1:22–23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy about Jesus’ birth: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). However, many Jewish and non-Jewish authors have challenged Mathew’s claim and Christians for taking Isaiah 7:14 out of context, and applying it to a virgin birth and to a Messiah. They also point out that since Isaiah 7:16 says, “For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken”, this was not fulfilled by the Messiah. This short paper is a verse-by-verse study on Isaiah 7:1-16 to see if this chapter is indeed a prophecy of the Messiah or someone else.

Now it came about in the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, the king of Aram and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but could not conquer it. (Isaiah 7:1, NASB, 1995)

Now it came about in the days of Ahaz. Ahaz was a wicked king of Judah, worshipping other gods and even sacrificing his son to Molech (2 Kings 16:1-4). The only good thing Ahaz seemed to do was to father Hezekiah, who became a good king of Judah.

Rezin, the king of Aram [Syria] and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, king of Israel went up to Jerusalem to wage war against it. The alliance between these two nations [Syria and Israel] and their unsuccessful attack on Jerusalem [of the Kingdom of Judah] is described in 2 Kings 16. [In about the 10th century BC, there was a great dispute in Israel, the nation chosen by God, about who was to become king (1 Kings 12:16-19). Two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, did not agree with the proposed king of Israel, Rehoboam. As a result,  the two tribes  decided to forsake their inheritance. They became the southern Kingdom of Judah. The northern 10 tribes remained one people group and kept the name of Israel.  The Kingdom of Israel in the north, contained the cities of Shechem and Samaria; and the Kingdom of Judah in the south, contained the city of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple]. 

But could not conquer it. How was Ahaz saved from this attack? Because he entered into an ungodly alliance with Tiglath-Pileserking of Assyria, and even gave Tiglath-Pileser silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD as a present to win his favor and protection (2 Kings 16:7-9).

When it was reported to the house of David, saying, “The Arameans have camped in Ephraim,” his heart and the hearts of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake with the wind. (Isaiah 7:2, NASB, 1995)

When it was reported to the house of David. That is, the royal family; or the king and princes; the government of Judah. Ahaz was the descendant and successor of David.

“The Arameans [Syrians] have camped in Ephraim,” Ephraim is another title for the northern nation of Israel. King Ahaz heard again that Syria and Israel had joined together to make war against Judah.

His heart and the hearts of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake with the wind. King Ahaz and his people reacted with fear instead of with trust in God. They were shaken and unstable in their hearts.

Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the fuller’s field (Isaiah 7:3, NASB, 1995)

Then the Lord said to Isaiah. With this threat looming against Judah [the House of David], the Lord sends Isaiah to give assurance to Ahaz.

Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub. Isaiah is told to go out to meet Ahaz, however, not by himself, but also specifically with his son Shear-jashub. Frequently, commentators overlook this command to bring the boy as if it were an unnecessary detail. There appears to be a purpose for taking his son as we will soon see. 1

At the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the fuller’s field. It was probably a subterranean duct which brought water into the city from the high ground outside the Damascus gate. Ahaz may have visited it in order to see that it was made available for his own use, but not for the enemy’s. These seemingly irrelevant details also make an important point. All this happened to real people at a real time and in real places. 

And say to him, ‘Take care and be calm, have no fear and do not be faint hearted because of these two stubs of smoldering firebrands, on account of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. (Isaiah 7:4, NASB, 1995)

Seemingly, Ahaz needed to pay attention (take care) and stop his talking about the problem (be calm). He needed to trust God and take courage in the LORD (do not fear or be fainthearted). God looked at Israel and Syria and saw two stubs of smoking firebrands. To the LORD, they were all smoke and no fire. 2


Because Aram, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, has planned evil against you, saying, 6 “Let us go up against Judah and terrorize it, and make for ourselves a breach in its walls and set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it,” (Isaiah 7:5-6, NASB, 1995)

Because Aram, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah. Not that there were three parties in the confederacy against Judah, only two, the kingdoms of Syria [Aram] and Ephraim, or Israel; the king of the former [Syria] is not mentioned at all, and the latter [Israel] only as if he was the son of a private person, which is purposely done by way of contempt.

“Let us go up against Judah and terrorize it. The words imply an assault on the line of fortresses that defended Judah.

Set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it. Nothing more is known of this person. He might have been some captain, unrelated to the House of David, who had sought to aid of Rezin [King of Syria] and Pekah [King of Israel]. To set him up on the throne would mean that the entire house of David was endangered, and also the hope of a Messiah from David’s lineage.

Thus says the Lord God: “It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.  (Isaiah 7:7)

Setting up the Son of Tabeel meant that the entire house of David was endangered. Were Syria and Israel to succeed, the messianic promise of a future son of David who would have an eternal house, kingdom, and throne (2 Samuel 7:16) would be demolished. But such a thing will not come to fulfillment. 3

For the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is Rezin (now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people), and the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you will not believe, you surely shall not ]last.” (Isaiah 7:8-9)

For the head [capital] of Aram [Syria] is Damascus and the head [ruler] of Damascus is Rezin. Syria and Ephraim have merely human heads – the one Rezin, the other Pekah (the son of Remaliah); but Judah, it is implied, has a Divine Head.

Now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people. Isaiah predicted that within 65 years, the northern kingdom of Israel would no longer be recognized as a people. It was completely fulfilled in 669 BC when Ashurbanipal enacted the final population transfers between Israel and Assyria (Ezr 4:2, 10). Thus in 669 BC, 65 years from the date of the events described in Isaiah’s prophecy, the northern kingdom was indeed “shattered to be a people” (verse 8) and the land was inhabited by Samaritans, a people of mixed ethnicity (Ezra 4:2).

If you will not believe, you surely shall not last. The prophet reads the thoughts that were working in the king Ahaz’s mind. He had no faith in these predictions terminating at a date which he was not likely to live to witness. If he did not put confidence in God, and his promises, he should not be protected from Syria and Ephraim [Israel].

Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” (Isaiah 7:10-11)

Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God”. The Lord Himself has just called upon Ahaz to ask for a sign.

Make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven. “Make it [the sign] deep as Sheol or high as heaven”, it appears that Ahaz was to ask for a miraculous or supernatural sign.

But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!” (Isaiah 7:12)

Ahaz, with false piety, refuses to test God. The disingenuous nature of his response is plain in that this is a king who had so little regard for the Lord that he practiced idolatry, even offering his own son as a child sacrifice to Molech (2Kg 16:3; 2Ch 28:3). While he might claim biblical justification (Deut 6:16) for his refusal to ask or test the Lord (verse 12), this seems ridiculous because the Lord Himself has just called upon him to do so.

Then he said, “Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? (Isaiah 7:13)

Then he said, “Listen now, O house of David! Isaiah speaks now but His address shifts away from Ahaz to the whole house of David. This is evident not only from the vocative “house of David” but also from the change of singular pronouns and verbs of command (Isaiah 7:4, 11) to plural. When addressing Ahaz alone, the singular was used. However, in Isaiah 7:13-14, Isaiah used the second-person plural. This is not an obvious change in the English Bible, but in verse 13, the imperative verb “listen” is plural. The reason for the shift is that God was clearly fed up with this wicked and sanctimonious king, so he addressed the royal house he represented.1

Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? The rulers of Judah were not satisfied with wearying people, but they would also fatigue and wear out the patience of God.

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel (Isaiah 9:14). 

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Isaiah declared that, nonetheless, the Lord would give the House of David a sign. Since the northern alliance was threatening to replace Ahaz with the son of Tabeel, the entire house of David was endangered, and the messianic promise of a future son of David was also threatened. This provides the need for a long-term sign of hope. What is that sign?

Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son.  The sign that the Lord promised the house of David is that of a pregnant almah who would bear a son. This indeed would meet the qualification of the “sign” that is “deep as Sheol or high as heaven” (Isaiah 7:10-11). The use of the article (frequently untranslated in modern English versions) with the word almah indicates that the Lord has a specific woman in mind. In its every use in the Hebrew Bible, the word almah either refers to a virgin or has a neutral sense. While the Hebrew word bethulah could refer to a virgin of any age, almah would refer to a virgin that has just arrived at puberty.1

Moreover, Matthew’s gospel (Matthew 1:22–23) was probably quoting from the Septuagint — a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek completed around the 2nd century BCE. The Septuagint translated הָעַלְמָה (ha’almah) as parthenos — meaning “virgin”. Since the Septuagint predates Christianity, there’s no reason to think that the translators intentionally changed the meaning. Rashi, one of the most influential Jewish commentators, stated that some Jews understood the verse as prophecy about a virgin birth:

“And some interpret that this is the sign, that she was a young girl and incapable of giving birth.” (The Jewish Bible with a Modern English Translation and Rashi’s Commentary, Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg). 4

Hence, it is not necessary to abandon the traditional interpretation of almah as a “virgin” except for an anti-supernatural or anti-messianic bias. 

She will call His name Immanuel. The virgin mother of the child will recognize His special nature. Therefore, she will give Him the title “Immanuel,” which means “God with us.” The message to Judah was that God would be with them in a special way through this child. This was true of Jesus in fact, not only as a title: Immanuel speaks both of the deity of Jesus (God with us) and His identification and nearness to man (God with us).

He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good (Isaiah 9:15). 

The Lord continues His description of the virgin-born Davidic Messiah, giving a clue to the situation into which He would be born. Many mistake the butter and honey He would eat as the food of royalty, ignoring the context in Isaiah 7 itself. Later in the chapter, Isaiah writes of the coming Assyrian oppression, when Assyria would shave the land (Isaiah 7:20). At that time, fields will not be cultivated and will become pastures for oxen and sheep (Isaiah 7:23-25). The effect of this will be an overabundance of dairy (or butter/curds) because of the pasturing of livestock and an excess of honey because bees will be able to pollinate the wild flowers. Therefore, because of “the abundant milk they give,” a man “will eat butter [curd], for every survivor in the land will eat butter and honey” (7:21-22). So, in this passage, butter and honey do not represent the food of royalty but rather the food of oppression. The point then of the description of the future virgin-born, Davidic king eating curd and honey is to accentuate that he would be born during a time of political oppression. In other words, the prophecy of Messiah concludes with a hint that He will be born and grow up (“learning to reject what is bad and choose what is good”) at a time when Judah is oppressed by a foreign power. It also shows that Jesus is not only fully God (He is Immanuel), but He is also fully Human (grow up). 

For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken (Isaiah 7:16).

While many have considered verse 16 to be a continuation of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:13-15, the grammar of the passage suggests otherwise. The opening phrase in Hebrew can reflect an adversative nuance, allowing for a disjunction between the child described in Isaiah 7:13-15 and the one described in Isaiah 7:16. This is also indicated in the shift from plural (verse 13-15) to singular (verse 16). There is a different child in view in this verse. So, who is the child?

In light of Isaiah being directed to bring his own son to the confrontation with the king at the conduit of the upper pool (Isaiah 7:3), it makes most sense to identify this lad as Shear-jashub. Otherwise, there would be no purpose for God directing Isaiah to bring the boy.  Thus, having promised the virgin birth of the Messiah (Isaiah 7:13-15), the prophet then points to the small boy that he has brought along and says, “But before this boy (using the article with a demonstrative force) knows to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken”. In this way, Shear-jashub functioned as a sign to the king. Appropriately, Isaiah could tell Judah in the very next chapter, “Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.” (Isaiah 8:18).

Therefore, in Isaiah 7:10-11, Isaiah used the singular to address King Ahaz. Then, when addressing the house of David with the prophecy of Messiah (Isaiah 7:13), he shifted to the plural. But in Isaiah 7:16, he addressed King Ahaz, using the singular pronoun once again and giving him a near prophecy: before Shear-jashub would be able to discern good from evil, the northern confederacy attacking Judah would fail. Within two years, Tiglath-Pileser defeated both Israel and Syria, just as the prophet had predicted. Therefore verse 16 cannot and does not apply to the Messiah child, but Isaiah’s child, and this interpretation is in line with the context and the grammar of the chapter.

References

1. The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecies: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, eds. Michael Rydelnik & Edwin Blum, published by Moody Publishers, Chicago, IL 2019, pp. 815-830.

2. David Guzik: Isaiah 7, https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/isaiah-7/

3. Biblehub, commentaries: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/7-13.htm

4. Nick Meader: Is Isaiah 7:14 About Jesus or Someone Else? https://medium.com/interfaith-now/is-isaiah-7-14-about-jesus-or-someone-else-84f25d327e0f

See also: Isaiah 53:1-12: Israel or Messiah?

Your support of this ministry is greatly appreciated and can be made here.