Zechariah’s Fourth Vision (3:1–10)

Satan (3:1). The use of the definite article (“the”) before the word “satan” here and in Job indicates that the author intends a noun describing a function (“adversary”) rather than a personal name (see sidebar on “Development of the Term ‘Satan’ ”).

The ultimate focus of the accuser’s contentions here is God’s policies.21 When Joshua stands in the presence of God, the adversary opposes him because he is covered with the stains of his and his people’s guilt. This is not an illegitimate claim.

True, he “opposes,” though not in a spirit of malice, but rather because he meticulously clings to justice, on the principle “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” After all, Joshua the high priest was in fact guilty: he was dressed in garments covered with excrement, and he himself donned them in his guilt. Satan did not garb him in foul clothes through an unjust accusation. The garments are removed when God forgives his sin: he is acquitted not through justice, but through mercy, through pardon.22

Joshua (3:3). Joshua, the sitting high priest in this period, shared leadership in the community with Zerubbabel. Though Zerubbabel had legitimate Davidic pedigree and therefore a claim to the throne, the fact that Yehud was under Persian rule necessarily restricted his role. Zerubbabel therefore served as governor, and as part of the imperial system, the governor’s range of powers was constricted. As high priest, Joshua may have enjoyed control over resources and parts of the community that a governor could not access, thus making it critical that both these individuals needed to cooperate on the rebuilding effort. There are no contemporary extrabiblical references to Joshua, but in the biblical accounts his grandfather, Seraiah, had been executed by Nebuchadnezzar when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians (2 Kings 25:18–21); Joshua is therefore also likely related to Ezra (see Ezra 7:1).

Standing before him (3:4). Since the scene features an accuser and a court setting, we can recognize a type-scene familiar from the ancient world–that of the heavenly court. Most ancient Near Eastern cultures believed that decisions by which the cosmos was run and human matters were resolved occurred in the divine council, made up of the principal members of the pantheon.23 So, for example, in a building inscription dated to about 700 B.C. from Karatepe, Azatiwada pronounces a curse on any who would remove his name: “Then shall Baʿal Shamem and El, creator of the earth, and Shemesh, the eternal, and the whole group of the children of the gods erase that kingdom, and that king, and that man who is a man of renown.”24

Colossal statue with Phoenician inscription of Azatiwada

Mark Wilson, courtesy of the Karatepe Museum

In mythological literature, the divine council figures prominently. For example, it is this council that delivers kingship to Marduk in Enuma Elish. There the council is made up of fifty gods with a main council of seven.25 It thus appears that Joshua’s case is being heard before the heavenly assembly, in Israelite thinking made up not of gods, but of the “sons of God.”

Put a clean turban on his head (3:5). This is clearly an investiture scene, but the interpretive question turns on the significance of the investiture. If it were a vesting of Joshua as high priest, we might expect some reference to the various high priestly garments known from the rest of the Old Testament. As it stands, the only specific piece of clothing referred to is the turban, and the word used is not the same as that describing the high priestly turban. Given the larger context of temple building, an alternative that is worth considering is that the headpiece referred to here is the special headpiece used by kings in the ancient Near East to carry the ceremonial first brick for laying the foundation of temples.26 Numerous examples of this appear in ancient Near Eastern reliefs from the Sumerian period (stele of Ur-Nanshe) to the Neo-Assyrian period (notably Ashurbanipal). If this is the nature of the turban here in Zechariah, Joshua is being purified and prepared for his role in the construction of the temple.

Ashurbanipal with the special turban used to carry the ceremonial first brick

© The Trustees of the British Museum

Branch (3:8). See comment on 6:12.

Seven eyes on that one stone (3:9). The traditional interpretation has been that the seven eyes refer to seven facets of a stone.27 The problem with this interpretation is that there is no evidence of gemstones being cut with facets in the ancient world. The background that has already been observed of a temple-building context suggests that an alternative interpretation should be considered from that context.

When we examine temple-building accounts and texts dealing with temple gifts and temple deposits, several uses of gemstones become evident. First, gemstones are sometimes given as gifts to the temple with the names of donors engraved on them. Most important, they are sometimes cut in the shape of eyes.28 Aside from the shape of the stones, since the context of Zechariah speaks of the stone (3:9) that is set before Zechariah, the discussion would likely concern a foundation stone or the first brick idea.

In this regard it should be noted that it was not uncommon in Mesopotamia to include gemstones in the foundation deposit of the temple. R. Ellis gives numerous examples, but we will cite just one here: “I spread on its foundations gold, silver, and stones imported from the mountain regions and from (across) the sea.”29 Consequently, we might suggest that the foundation stone is being set before Joshua and seven precious stones are being inlaid on it.