It is often said that when it comes to interpretation, context is king—well, in Zech 6:13 the high priest is prophesied to be king, a prophecy which the post-exilic context renders (to say the least) far-fetched. Interpreters have wrestled with how to understand the implications of Zechariah 6 as a whole, and particularly with v. 13. This is a text laden with Christological significance, yet shrouded in mystery. What is the “council of peace” and who are the parties to the covenant described there? This paper examines how locating the “counsel of peace” in Israel’s post-exilic context sheds light on its implications. There are particular elements inherent in the Davidic covenant (such as a monarchy, a nation, and the line of David) which in Zechariah’s life were all conspicuous by their absence. Drawing on Block’s recent work on “covenance” in the ANE (Covenant, 2021) as well as Meyers and Meyers 2008 work in the AYBC, this paper contrasts the expectations inherent within the Davidic covenant with reality of post-exilic Jerusalem, and show how that frames the “dual office” kind of leader Zechariah describes. Finally, it recaps the different interpretive options concerning the “counsel of peace” and explains how those options inform the Christological significance of the passage.
Thesis: When understood in a post-exilic context, Zech 6:13 describes an intra-Trinitarian counsel with Christological implications.
I. Post-exilic context of Zech 6:13
II. Parties to the counsel (overview of interpretive options)
III. Zech 6:13 and the NT (18 examples)
IV. Zech 6:13 and Christology
V. Zech 6:13 and the pactum