Zechariah 6:13 and the Pactum: How a Post-exilic Counsel Informs Christology

Abstract: It is often said that when it comes to interpretation, context is king. Well, the context of Zech 6:13 is that the office of king is merged with that of the high priest. This is a verse laden with Christological significance, yet also shrouded in mystery. What is the “council of peace” and who are the parties to the covenant described there? Interpreters have wrestled with how to understand the implications of Zechariah 6 as a whole, and particularly with v. 13. 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 noticeably absent. 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 shows 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.
Outline:
I. 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

5 thoughts on “Zechariah 6:13 and the Pactum: How a Post-exilic Counsel Informs Christology”

  1. Johnson, Zechariah 6:13 and the Pactum: How a Post-exilic Counse
    The Trinity in a post-exilic context is a bit blunt, but more importantly he seems to want to move from a contested text through BT toward a particular systematic formulation all in one paper, which seems too much.

    Reply
  2. Probably substantial enough
    Probably substantial enough for inclusion in the conference in some capacity, but the jump from the prose of the abstract to the actual thesis was abrupt for me!

    Reply

Leave a Comment