Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship Community Forums

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
William

Zechariah 6:9-15 One or two persons: king and priest?

Recommended Posts

Staff
  1. Why would a crown be set upon the head of Joshua the high priest?
  2. Whose name is the "Branch"?
  3. Can anyone describe more indepth about the Temple here?
  4. What kinda Priest sits on a throne?
  5. Lastly, verse 15 states that " if you will diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God", has this condition been met?
     

9 And the word of the Lord came to me: 10 “Take from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon, and go the same day to the house of Josiah, the son of Zephaniah.  11 Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it on the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 And say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. 13 It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”’ 14 And the crown shall be in the temple of the Lord as a reminder to Helem,[c] Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Hen the son of Zephaniah.

 

15 “And those who are far off shall come and help to build the temple of the Lord. And you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you. And this shall come to pass, if you will diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God.”

 

Verses for Consideration:

  • Isaiah 11:1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
  • 1 Peter 2:1-12 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

 

Questions for consideration:

  • Is the Temple here the human body of Jesus Christ (Hypostatic Union)?
  • Do these passages refer to a Temple made with wood, brick, and or stone?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, William said:
  • Is the Temple here the human body of Jesus Christ (Hypostatic Union)?
  • Do these passages refer to a Temple made with wood, brick, and or stone?

Zechariah 6:15 says, "Those who are far off shall come and help to build the temple of the Lord."  There is no way anyone could help build the body of Jesus Christ so it must refer to a temple made of wood, brick, or stone.  This speaks of the temple that will be built during the Millennium when Jesus reigns on earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Zec 6:12  And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD: 
Zec 6:13  Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both. 
Zec 6:14  And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the LORD. 
Zec 6:15  And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the LORD, and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you. And this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God. 


 Who is the man named The BRANCH

Mar 14:58  We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

 

1Pe 2:5  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 
1Co 15:46  Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 6:19 PM, William said:
  1. Why would a crown be set upon the head of Joshua the high priest?
  2. Whose name is the "Branch"?
  3. Can anyone describe more indepth about the Temple here?
  4. What kinda Priest sits on a throne?
  5. Lastly, verse 15 states that " if you will diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God", has this condition been met?
     

9 And the word of the Lord came to me: 10 “Take from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon, and go the same day to the house of Josiah, the son of Zephaniah.  11 Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it on the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 And say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. 13 It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”’ 14 And the crown shall be in the temple of the Lord as a reminder to Helem,[c] Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Hen the son of Zephaniah.

 

15 “And those who are far off shall come and help to build the temple of the Lord. And you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you. And this shall come to pass, if you will diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God.”

 

Verses for Consideration:

  • Isaiah 11:1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
  • 1 Peter 2:1-12 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

 

Questions for consideration:

  • Is the Temple here the human body of Jesus Christ (Hypostatic Union)?
  • Do these passages refer to a Temple made with wood, brick, and or stone?

 

I can't believe that the Temple spoken of her can be anything but the Lord . He was the Messiah (the Branch ) and prophet, priest and king. The passages cannot refer to anything other than the body of Christ, the Church.

There is no reason given as to why these three individuals were taken from the captivity and chosen for this task. As to the crown and the placing it on the head of Joshua ,the only reason given was to display the properties of the Messiah ,  presenting Him as Prophet, priest and king.   M

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In verse 11 the word for crown is plural  עֲטָר֑וֹת meaning it should be read crowns, not crown. These crowns are not only meant for Joshua son of Jehozadak. but also for

Helem, Tobijah, Jedaiah, and for Hen (verse 14). But, actually, verse 13 seems to suggest that although Joshua receives a crown (or maybe diadem as described in Exod 29:6; 39:30)

that the one who builds the temple and sits on the throne is the one called Branch and Joshua and the Branch will work together in some way. 

 

One more  interpretation:

 

Quote

 

A Symbolic Coronation (6:9–15)

This lengthy message (which began in 1:7) concludes with instructions for Zechariah to perform a symbolic coronation of the high priest Joshua. Using silver and gold collected from three of the returning exiles, Zechariah was to make a crown and place it on Joshua’s head (vv. 9–11). After delivering a message pertaining to the rebuilding of the temple and the unification of the royalty and priesthood (vv. 12–13), Zechariah was to place the crown in the temple as a memorial to the exiles who had donated the silver and gold from which it was made (v. 14). Their contribution foreshadowed the participation of other returning exiles in the rebuilding of the temple (v. 15).
The message accompanying the symbolic coronation requires special attention. As Zechariah placed the crown on Joshua’s head, he was to announce that one designated “the Branch” would rebuild the temple and occupy a throne (vv. 12–13a). At first it appears that Joshua is identified as “the Branch,” but this seems unlikely since the fourth and fifth visions, when correlated, identify Zerubbabel as the Branch who would rebuild the temple (see 3:8 and 4:7–10). Zechariah’s message actually pertained to both Joshua and Zerubbabel and anticipated their cooperative relationship as leaders of the covenant community. Verses 11–13 display a chiastic structure:

      A      Joshua is crowned as the priestly ruler of the community (11).
           B      Zerubbabel (the Branch) will rebuild the temple (12–13a).
           B′      Zerubbabel will be the civil ruler of the community (13b).
      A′      Joshua will be the priestly ruler of the community (13c).
      Conclusion: There will be harmony between the two rulers (13d).

 


Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

 

 

and yet another  point of view:

Quote

III. THE EXALTATION OF JOSHUA (6:9–15)
9. The word of the LORD came to me: an introductory formula which serves to show that this is a prophetic oracle that must be kept distinct from the preceding vision, and not, as J. G. Baldwin (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, ad. loc.) and others suggest, part of that vision. Three exiles have arrived from Babylon, presumably carrying offerings for the new Temple. The prophet is commanded to receive them and to (11) make a crown (Heb. ‘aṭārôt): the crown is singular though the noun is plural. It has been observed (e.g. by Edward Lipinski, in VT 20, 1970, pp. 25 ff.) that this is a primitive form having an antique or sacred connotation.
Zechariah is instructed to set it on the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. Many take the view that though Joshua is mentioned, Zerubbabel is in fact meant. The main arguments for this case run thus: (1) the crown here was a royal crown and therefore unsuitable for a priestly wearer, (2) the name of Joshua appears here rather than Zerubbabel in the light of subsequent events, viz., that Persian intervention prevented any such ‘coronation’ and so Joshua’s name was inserted to counteract subsequent disillusionment on the part of the readers of the prophecy, and Zerubbabel’s name disappears from the records from now on, and (3) therefore a scribal alteration became necessary to retain the general cohesion of the prophecy.
All these arguments are hazardous. As has also been observed, the crown here is not that which would be used at a royal ceremony; it betokens special dignity but not royalty. Moreover, if a scribe removed the name of Zerubbabel at this point in the text he would have needed to remove the clear allusion to him later (v. 13). To assume that the eventual disappearance of Zerubbabel lay at the root of such an excision from the text is to overlook what is essential in this passage, viz., that although honour is given to Joshua, Zerubbabel is the greater of the two for in him lie the organic links with the Messiah. H. L. Ellison points out rightly (Men Spake From God, p. 130) that the passage, whilst not naming Zerubbabel, except by the appellation ‘the Branch’, is eschatological and looks forward to a specific realization in the future. (Cf. also W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, ii, 1967, p. 343 and footnote.)
12 … ‘Here is the man …’ (Heb. ‘behold a man’): words which further indicate that besides Joshua there is another who is very much part of God’s message—whose name is the Branch (Heb. ṣemaḥ). Cf. 3:8, where the prophet has already prepared his hearers for the introduction of this title. Undoubtedly the absence of an explicit reference to Zerubbabel at this point means that complete and satisfactory identification of him as the ‘Branch’ is ultimately ruled out in the sense that the designation, though it has messianic flavour, falls short of the messianic ideal in that Joshua and Zerubbabel play a combined part in the rebuilding of the Temple. The former, as priest, prefigures an age in which priesthood will perfectly deal with the needs of the people; the latter, as king, only faintly shadows the ruler to come who was to reign for ever. Moreover, in this prophecy we have a partial presentiment of the comprehensive role of the New Testament Messiah (cf. Heb. 1:1–9). The idea of two Messiahs was more fully expressed in Qumran literature (cf. F. F. Bruce, Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 21961, pp. 80 ff.). A doctrine of two Messiahs is also to be seen in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (cf. R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, ii, 1963 [1913], pp. 282 ff.).
P. R. Ackroyd, however (op. cit., p. 649), believes that both Joshua and Zerubbabel were crowned and that v. 13 should be read as a poem in which personal references alternate between the two. This view is possibly more acceptable if we see the poem as alternating between Joshua (in reference to the Temple) and the Branch (in reference to an eschatological priest-king), since, indeed, and he will be a priest on (Heb. ‘al can also mean ‘by’) his throne (13) is capable only of a strictly futuristic interpretation. The fact that there will be harmony between the two would most naturally be taken as a direct reference to Joshua and Zerubbabel, yet nevertheless looking forward to a time when kingly and priestly rule are combined in one. 14. As a long-standing memorial to this oracle the crown will be in the temple of the LORD, principally for the benefit of those, who by Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah, sent the offerings of gold and silver. In the Heb. text ḥēlem ‘strength’ appears for the name of Heldai, and ḥēn for the name of Josiah. Various suggestions have been made to remove the difficulty. It is probably best to read ḥēlem as an alternative name for Heldai, but to read possibly ḥēn in its usual connotation as ‘grace’, thus giving some such sense as: ‘… and (a memorial) to the grace of (Josiah) the son of Zephaniah’ (NIV text reads Hen).
15. ‘Those who are far away …’: pushes the closing words of the oracle far into the future. The words cannot mean that exiles or dispersed Jews would have a hand in the building of the Temple. That was well on its way to completion. The words can only sensibly be understood as those which harmonize with other prophetic passages (e.g. Isa. 2:2 ff.; 19:23 ff.; cf. Zech. 2:11; 8:22) in which the arrival of the Messiah will extend the blessings of the covenant to men far beyond the bounds of Judaism. In that day the Temple will not be made by human hands (Rev. 21:22; cf. Jn 2:19 ff.) but will be formed by a living community gathered round one Lord and one God. But for Zechariah’s hearers, in the meantime a glorious, albeit partial, fulfilment such as this will demand diligent obedience, as indeed did the ancient law of God (cf. Dt. 17:12–16).


Bruce, F. F. New International Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
13 hours ago, Ben Asher said:

In verse 11 the word for crown is plural  עֲטָר֑וֹת meaning it should be read crowns, not crown. These crowns are not only meant for Joshua son of Jehozadak. but also for

Helem, Tobijah, Jedaiah, and for Hen (verse 14). But, actually, verse 13 seems to suggest that although Joshua receives a crown (or maybe diadem as described in Exod 29:6; 39:30)

I'm not studied in Hebrew so if you bear with I'd appreciate an explanation. If plural crowns why do most translation suggests a crown rather than the plural crowns and then go on to refer to it and not them? I mean what I note here is that the majority of translation are stating a crown rather than crowns:

 

  • Zechariah 6:11 KJV Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;
  • Zechariah 6:11 NET Then take some silver and gold to make a crown and set it on the head of Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest.
  • Zechariah 6:11 ESV Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it on the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest.

 

And, 

 

15 “And those who are far off shall come and help to build the temple of the Lord. And you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you. And this shall come to pass, if you will diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God.

 

Could those who are far off refer to the Elect which are far off from the world (undefiled, priests, etc.)?

 

1 Peter 2:4  As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious,

 

I mean I think this is a pretty big deal and if Peter is referring to the anti-type of the Temple then those who are far off are not coming from there to here or going from here to there and not handling dead wood, brick, or stone.


1 Peter 2:5  you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

 

Does anyone find 1 Peter 2 relevant or not relevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

(answer one)

Greetings William!

 

Most of the English translations that I am familiar with actually read "crowns" rather than "crown" in the text under consideration.

For example:

 

Zechariah 6:11

And you shall take silver and gold, and you shall make crowns, and place [them] upon the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the High Priest.

Judaica Press.Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg. Mikraoth Gedoloth Nach/Books of the Prophets and Writings 


Zechariah 6:11
“Take silver and gold and make crowns. Place [one] on the head of High Priest Joshua son of Jehozadak,”
Jewish Publication Society. Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985.

 

Zechariah 6:11
“yea, take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set the one upon the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest;”
Jewish Publication Society of America. Torah Nevi’im U-Khetuvim. The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1917.

 

Zechariah 6:11
and take silver and gold and make crowns, and place [one of them] on the head of Joshua son of Jehosadak, the Kohen Gadol.
Mesorah Publications, Ltd. The ArtScroll Series Stone Edition Tanach.  Brooklyn, N.Y. 1998


Zechariah 6:11
"and take from them silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Yehoshua the son of Yehozadaq, the high priest;"
Koren Publishers, Ltd, The Holy Scriptures/Tanakh. English text revised and edited by Harold Fisch. Jerusalem, Israel. 2001


Zechariah 6:11
then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech the high priest;
The British and Foreign Bible Society.  OLD Testament Hebrew & English.  ISBN 0 564 00039 6

 

Zechariah 6:11

 Take silver and gold; make crowns; put one on the head of Y’hoshua the son of Y’hotzadak, the cohen hagadol;

Stern, David H. Complete Jewish Bible: An English Version of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and B’rit Hadashah (New Testament). 1st ed. Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1998.

 

 

 

Edited by Ben Asher
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(answer two)

Below you will find a screenshot of Accordance Bible Software with ETCBC database opened to Zacheriah6:11. The instance details box parsing of the noun identifies it as a plural in agreement with the translations listed in the post above this one:

 

pluralCrowns.png.3696cb810a69a81ed205f76112679884.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

(answer three)

William, I have no idea why the translations that you are mentioned of render עֲטָר֑וֹת  as if it were a singular?

The LXX, Targums, and Syriac translate the noun as if it were singular, but the Masoretic text has the plural and since the Masoretic is my received text/canon I am going to go with it. Perhaps the translators of the versions you posted favored the LXX? I am not sure...

 

The following may provide some hints at answering your question:

Quote

6:11 Verse 11 expresses the objective of the preceding action, fashioning a crown for Joshua the high priest. The text uses a rare word in the plural for “crown” (ʿăṭārôt), one that normally occurs in royal passages. The plural form raises the question of how many crowns Zechariah fashioned.
Some feel that v. 13 suggests that two crowns are fashioned, one for Joshua and the other for Zerubbabel. Kimchi followed this view, maintaining that the text omits mentioning the crowning of Zerubbabel for fear of offending the Persian authorities. However, this view rests wholly on an argument from silence regarding Zerubbabel’s crowning and a misunderstanding of the word “crown.”
A variation of the two crown interpretation suggests that Zechariah had two crowns made, one of gold for Zerubbabel and the other of silver for Joshua the high priest. This understanding, although theoretically possible, reads into the text an interpretation that the passage itself does not substantiate. Still another perspective claims that multiple crowns existed, one for Joshua and one for each of the four figures in v. 10.
Alternatively, many conclude that the Lord instructed Zechariah to prepare only one crown. The word “crown” is plural in v. 14 also, although the adjoining verbal form that the NIV translates “will be given” is singular. The phenomenon of plural nouns with singular meaning and accompanied by singular verbs (see Prov 1:20) occurs elsewhere, a usage that Zechariah seems to employ here.
Thus, there is no need to revocalize the Hebrew word ʿăṭārôt as a singular. Since the Masoretic Text offers a reading that is clear (though difficult), one should retain the received Hebrew reading.32 The plural noun “crowns” may refer to the majesty or excellence of the crown, a well known use of plural nouns in the Old Testament. Floyd focuses on the discussion about the number of crowns, noting that the actual number of crowns remains uncertain. He draws attention to the main point of the passage, which is that Zechariah received divine instructions to crown only one individual, Joshua the high priest (v. 11).

Klein, George L. Zechariah. Vol. 21B. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008. Print. The New American Commentary.

 

and...

 

Quote

Were there two crowns or one? The word appears to be plural each time it occurs in the text (vv 11, 14) but the verb is singular in v 14. The plural form could refer to the various rings around one crown. Lipinski (34) points out that the fem. pl. ending וֹת is used of wisdom in the book of Proverbs in the sing. (Prov 1:20; 9:1). However v 13 may suggest that both Zerubbabel and Joshua were crowned.

Smith, Ralph L. Micah–Malachi. Vol. 32. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998. Print. Word Biblical Commentary.

Edited by Ben Asher
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
7 hours ago, Ben Asher said:

William, I have no idea why the translations that you are mentioned of render עֲטָר֑וֹת  as if it were a singular?

Well, I had to ask because you made it a point to correct. Why do a fair share render it singular and how does the plural vs singular use alter exegesis? Again, I ask that you bear with while you're pointing to scribble in another language because I have no idea what that means.

 

Also, I asked if 1 Peter 2 is relevant, the reason I asked that is because if so then Zechariah ought be interpreted in light of the NT. To not do that I begin to wonder if an unbelieving scholar (namely Hebrew speaking) are rejecting the NT.... . and whether someone could be using them in order to promote a theology which ushers in a third temple?

 

In clarification, how does the singular vs plural alter an exegesis?

 

New International Version
Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jozadak.

New Living Translation
Accept their gifts, and make a crown from the silver and gold. Then put the crown on the head of Jeshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest.

English Standard Version
Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it on the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest.

Berean Study Bible
Take silver and gold, make an ornate crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak.

New American Standard Bible
"Take silver and gold, make an ornate crown and set it on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest.

King James Bible
Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;

Christian Standard Bible
Take silver and gold, make a crown, and place it on the head of Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest.

Good News Translation
Make a crown out of the silver and gold they have given, and put it on the head of the High Priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Take silver and gold, make crowns and place them on the head of Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest.

International Standard Version
Take silver and gold and fashion crowns to set upon the head of Joshua son of Johozadak, the High Priest.

NET Bible
Then take some silver and gold to make a crown and set it on the head of Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest.

New Heart English Bible
Take silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest;

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Take the silver and gold, make a crown, and put it on the head of Chief Priest Joshua, son of Jehozadak.

JPS Tanakh 1917
yea, take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set the one upon the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest;

New American Standard 1977
“And take silver and gold, make an ornate crown, and set it on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest.

Jubilee Bible 2000
Thou shalt take silver and gold and make crowns and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest,

King James 2000 Bible
Then take silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it upon the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest;

American King James Version
Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them on the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;

American Standard Version
yea, take of them'silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest;

Brenton Septuagint Translation
And thou shalt take silver and gold, and make crowns, and thou shalt put them upon the head of Jesus the son of Josedec the high priest;

Douay-Rheims Bible
And thou shalt take gold and silver: and shalt make crowns, and thou shalt set them on the head of Jesus the son of Josedec, the high priest.

Darby Bible Translation
yea, take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set [them] upon the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest;

English Revised Version
yea, take of them silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest;

Webster's Bible Translation
Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest.

World English Bible
Yes, take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest;

Young's Literal Translation
and thou hast taken silver and gold, and hast made a crown, and hast placed on the head of Joshua son of Josedech, the high priest,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

From what I gather, this would be an example of some arguing that two crowns had to be made for a king and priest (two persons) when indeed one crown represents both offices (crowns) united in one person. Does anyone wear two physical crowns simultaneously? Secondly, from Calvin's commentary I glean that this is an "acting out of symbolism" as a visual aid for Israel's understanding.

 

From the Pulpit Commentary:

 

Silver and gold. That which had been brought from Babylon. However unwilling the Jews were to let the Samaritans take part in the good work, they were quite ready to receive contributions from their brethren in the dispersion, and likewise from heathen kings and princes. (see Ezr 6:8, etc.; Ezr 7:15, etc.) Make crowns. The prophet was to get the crowns made. comp. Ex 25, passim) The plural may here be used intensively for "a noble crown," as in Job 31:36; or it may signify the two metals of which the crown was made, two or more wreaths being intertwined to form it. It is certain that only one crown was to be made, and that that was to be placed on Joshua"s head. There is no mention of Zerubbabel in the passage; so the plural cannot be taken to intimate that there was a crown for the high priest and a crown for the princely ruler, as Ewald and Bunsen assert. These critics, followed by Hitzig and Wellhausen, supply the passage thus: "on the head of Zerubbabel and on the head of Joshua." Zerubbabel had no kingly position. Rather, all mention of Zerubbabel is expressly excluded, in order to denote that in the Person of him whom Joshua symbolized, the offices of priest and king were united. (Ps 110) We may note that in Rev 19:12 Christ is said to have on his head many crowns, by which is meant a diadem composed of many circlets. The high priest"s mitre is never called a crown. That which was placed on Joshua"s head was a royal crown, a token of royal dignity, not his own, but his whom he represented Christ the eternal Priest, the universal King.

 

John Calvin:

 

Zechariah being ordered to set the crowns on the head of Joshua, we are not so to regard this, as though Joshua had immediately undertaken the two offices of a king and a priest; for he was satisfied with his own: but the Prophet shows in the type what was to be looked for at the coming of the Messiah; for the time had not yet come, when Christ should receive the royal diadem, as it is said in Ezekiel, —


“Take away the diadem; set it aside, set it aside, set it aside, until he shall come, whose it is.” (Eze 21:26.)


We here see that the Prophet points out a length of time, during which the royal diadem was to be trodden as it were under foot. Though the royal crown had not yet laid in the dust sufficiently long, yet the Prophet did nothing presumptuously; for the Jews could not have conceived in their mind what is here promised, had not the typical priest come forth, wearing the two crowns. Nor could this have been so suitable to the person of Zerubbabel; for though he was of the family of David, and was a type of Christ, he had not yet the name of a king, nor had he any regal power: he could not therefore have been so suitable a person. It is then no wonder that God brought forth the high priest Joshua, who was a type and representative of Christ; and he brought him forth with a double crown, because he who was to come would unite, according to what follows, the priesthood with the kingly office.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, William said:

Well, I had to ask because you made it a point to correct.

No problem, it is always good to ask questions and to explore. 

 

4 hours ago, William said:

Why do a fair share render it singular and how does the plural vs singular use alter exegesis?

The following is only my conjecture, but I guess that probably because someone(or community) is ignoring the Hebrew text in favor of the LXX. Translators with access to the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia's textual apparatus (see page 1069) would be informed that the LXX and the Syriac translation render the word in the singular. Those translators, in turn, may go with the LXX because it the text the early church most likely used.

 

3 hours ago, William said:

Does anyone wear two physical crowns simultaneously?

One: the use of the plural form does not indicate how many, only that there were more than one,

Two:  no one at least not to my knowledge is arguing that one person wore more than one crown. Some suggest that there is one crown with two parts a silver part and a gold part, that multiple crowns were given out see verse 14.

 

4 hours ago, William said:

Also, I asked if 1 Peter 2 is relevant, the reason I asked that is because if so then Zechariah ought be interpreted in light of the NT

1 Peter 2 appears neither to be quoting nor alluding to Zechariah chapter 6. So, it is not clear to me that 1 Peter 2 is offering some kind of commentary on Zechariah.

 

4 hours ago, William said:

To not do that I begin to wonder if an unbelieving scholar (namely Hebrew speaking) are rejecting the NT.... . and whether someone could be using them in order to promote a theology which ushers in a third temple?

One: The above seems unlikely, due to the fact that the reading found in the Hebrew predates the NT. 

Two: the vast majority of the branches of modern Judaism rejects the concept of building a third temple. 

 

If you are curious here is one modern Jewish understanding of the pericope:

Quote

6:9–15: The coronation of the high priest. 11–12: One would expect that the king would be crowned, but only the high priest Joshua is. Ibn Ezra, Radak, Rashi, and others consider Zerubbabel to be the Branch, and the person for whom the other crown was meant. The Targum, however, reflects a different understanding: “And you shall take silver and gold and make a large crown and set it upon the head of Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest. And you shall speak to him, saying, ‘Thus speaks the LORD of hosts, saying, behold, the man whose name is Anointed will be revealed and he shall be raised up, and shall build the temple of the LORD.’ ” Significantly, it is likely that the text read “crown” in vv. 11 and 14 (see NRSV) rather than crowns. If this is the case, then there was only one crown in the world of the book, and it was Joshua’s. 14: In the ideal future, both the Branch and the priest will sit, each on his own throne. 15: The concluding words if only you will obey are an almost exact quotation of Deut. 28:1 and may allude to that ch, on the assumption that at this point in history, Deuteronomy was well known.

Berlin, Adele, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Michael Fishbane, eds. The Jewish Study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

 

Okay.....

5 hours ago, William said:

In clarification, how does the singular vs plural alter an exegesis?

Every translation of the Hebrew Bible is, in fact, an interpretation of Holy Scripture. Therefore, in my opinion, the English versions do not alter the meaning of the received Hebrew text, which remains the same no matter how English translators decide to render their understanding of the text in English or any other language.

 

Of course:

Reading different translations is helpful in helping one understand how various communities have interpreted and understood the text.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Hi Ben,

1 hour ago, Ben Asher said:

1 Peter 2 appears neither to be quoting nor alluding to Zechariah chapter 6. So, it is not clear to me that 1 Peter 2 is offering some kind of commentary on Zechariah.

 

1 Peter 2 I think is addressing the universal church (anti-type).

 

1 hour ago, Ben Asher said:

One: The above seems unlikely, due to the fact that the reading found in the Hebrew predates the NT. 

Two: the vast majority of the branches of modern Judaism rejects the concept of building a third temple. 

And that's more conceivable. I cannot imagine a wise person thinking there will be a third temple. For example in Zechariah 6:15 a condition which has never been met by Israel is stated. Right then and there I'd think that anyone familiar with Israel's history would throw their hands up and say this is never going to happen.

 

Anyways, I'm not going to bother making a symbolic connection beyond stating the ancient temple is a type and the universal church is the anti-type.

 

1 hour ago, Ben Asher said:

If you are curious here is one modern Jewish understanding of the pericope:

Though I sincerely appreciate your efforts I couldn't care less (I'll explain). This is why I asked whether 1 Peter 2 was relative. I couldn't care less about what an Ancient Jew believed about the plurality of God as the basis for a non-Trinitarian position today. In the same way I find rebuilding a physical temple and advocating for the reestablishment of types and shadows (sacrifices) to be as unbelievable as the people holding these same very views today.

 

I do appreciate your informative posts Ben.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Greetings/Shalom Mr. WIlliam,

 

thank you for responding...

19 minutes ago, William said:

 

1 Peter 2 I think is addressing the universal church (anti-type). 

Does anti-type in the statement quoted above mean :

(a) "a person or thing that represents the opposite of someone or something else."?  Google search

(b) "something that is foreshadowed by a type or symbol, as a New Testament event prefigured in the Old Testament." Dictionary.com

 

 

46 minutes ago, William said:

Though I sincerely appreciate your efforts I couldn't care less (I'll explain).

Actually, as a general rule, I am far more interested in linguistics/philology than in theology. Like you, I am far more interested in what the text in front of me is saying and in the art of Ad fontes than in theology. That is not to say that theology isn't important, but as I am not skilled/learned in theology I tend to leave theology up to the theologians.  However, my quote from the Jewish Study Bible was only to illustrate how some Jews have understood the text and more importantly that most are not expecting the third temple. 

 

49 minutes ago, William said:

Anyways, I appreciate your input Ben. 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
3 hours ago, Ben Asher said:

 

Greetings/Shalom Mr. WIlliam,

 

thank you for responding...

Does anti-type in the statement quoted above mean :

(a) "a person or thing that represents the opposite of someone or something else."?  Google search

(b) "something that is foreshadowed by a type or symbol, as a New Testament event prefigured in the Old Testament." Dictionary.com

 

 

Actually, as a general rule, I am far more interested in linguistics/philology than in theology. Like you, I am far more interested in what the text in front of me is saying and in the art of Ad fontes than in theology. That is not to say that theology isn't important, but as I am not skilled/learned in theology I tend to leave theology up to the theologians.  However, my quote from the Jewish Study Bible was only to illustrate how some Jews have understood the text and more importantly that most are not expecting the third temple. 

 

Thank you

G'evening Ben, 

 

B, while the OT type is promissory and the NT anti-type fulfills divine purpose.

 

For example, the Temple was an OT type, a place of meeting between God and Israel. The anti-type is Jesus Christ, the Person in which God and man meet (hypostatic union). Further Jesus is God with us, Matthew 12:6 "one greater than the Temple is here",  just as the curtain was tore symbolizing the separation between man and God, God truly walked upon the earth in Jesus Christ and is now among us as the risen Lord. God's presence with man was a promise which has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

 

23 hours ago, William said:

And, 

 

15 “And those who are far off shall come and help to build the temple of the Lord. And you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you. And this shall come to pass, if you will diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God.

 

Could those who are far off refer to the Elect which are far off from the world (undefiled, priests, etc.)?

 

1 Peter 2:4  As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious,

 

I mean I think this is a pretty big deal and if Peter is referring to the anti-type of the Temple then those who are far off are not coming from there to here or going from here to there and not handling dead wood, brick, or stone.


1 Peter 2:5  you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 

 

The Temple of stone where God resided was a type for which the anti-type is now the Christian's human body that the Spirit of God indwells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Questions...

(a) So, then the term "type/antitype" means something along the lines of a spiritual allegory of figure? 

 

(b) How, does one go about differentiating between a text that should be understood according to normal literary analysis and one that is a spiritual allegory or type (especially in the case where the  NT neither directly quotes nor interprets the text in question)?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
2 hours ago, Ben Asher said:

 

Questions...

(a) So, then the term "type/antitype" means something along the lines of a spiritual allegory of figure? 

 

(b) How, does one go about differentiating between a text that should be understood according to normal literary analysis and one that is a spiritual allegory or type (especially in the case where the  NT neither directly quotes nor interprets the text in question)?

 

Typology is not allegory because the OT person, event, or institution which serves as the “type” must be historical:

 

Typology Contrasted with other Hermeneutical Forms: Typology and Allegory.

 

Bernard Ramm distinguishes between typology and allegory in this way:

 

“Allegorical interpretation is the interpretation of a document whereby something foreign, peculiar, or hidden is introduced into the meaning of the text giving it a proposed deeper or real meaning. . . . Typological interpretation is specifically the interpretation of the Old Testament based on the fundamental theological unity of the two Testaments whereby something in the Old shadows, prefigures, adumbrates something in the New. Hence, what is interpreted in the Old is not foreign or peculiar or hidden, but rises naturally out of the text due to the relationship of the two Testaments” (223).

 

Goppelt explains it this way:

 

“Allegorical interpretation . . . is not concerned with the truthfulness or factuality of the things described. For typological interpretation, however, the reality of the things described is indispensable. The typical meaning is not really a different or higher meaning, but a different or higher use of the same meaning that is comprehended in type and antitype” (13).

 

An example of allegorical interpretation may be of some help. The story of Herod’s slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem is allegorized by one of the church fathers in this way: “The fact that only the children of two years old and under were murdered while those of three presumably escaped is meant to teach us that those who hold the Trinitarian faith will be saved whereas Binitarians and Unitarians will undoubtedly perish!”

 

Some Primary Characteristics of Typology

 

“This correspondence must be both historical (i.e., a correspondence of situation and event) and theological (i.e., an embodiment of the same principle of God’s working). The lack of a real historical correspondence reduces typology to allegory, as when the scarlet thread hung in the window by Rahab is taken as a prefiguration of the blood of Christ; both may be concerned with deliverance, but the situations and events are utterly dissimilar. On the other hand, the lack of a real theological correspondence destroys what we have seen as the very basis of typology, the perception of a constant principle in the working of God. This is not, of course, to demand a correspondence in every detail of the two persons or events, but simply that the same theological principle should be seen operating in two persons or events which present a recognizable analogy to each other in terms of the actual historical situation. Only where there is both a historical and theological correspondence is a typological use of the Old Testament justified” (41).

 

3. There is in the “antitype” an intensification, an escalation of the “type.” The relation between the two is not simply one of mere repetition, nor even of comparative increase. Rather, in the “antitype” there is eschatological completion and consummation. The nature of this “intensification or escalation or consummation” which we see in the “antitype” is often such that involves a movement from the external and earthly to the internal and spiritual. For example, consider John 3:14-15. The points of correspondence are “lifting up” and “life”.

 

a. both the serpent and Christ were “lifted up”, but the latter in a way far more significant and spiritual than the former; similarly,

 

b. those who “looked” at the serpent received “life” in the physical sense, i.e., they did not die of the snake bite; on the other hand, those who “look” to Christ (i.e., believe in him) receive “life” in the spiritual sense, eternal life.

 

Patrick Fairbairn explains:

 

“For as the typical is divine truth on a lower stage, exhibited by means of outward relations and terrestrial interests, so, when making the transition from this to the antitypical, we must expect the truth to appear on a loftier stage, and, if we may so speak, with a more heavenly aspect. What in the one bore immediate respect to the bodily life, must in the other be found to bear immediate respect to the spiritual life. While in the one it is seen and temporal objects that ostensibly present themselves, their proper counterpart in the other is unseen and eternal – there, the outward, the present, the worldly; here, the inward, the future, the heavenly” (I:131).

 

4. The people contemporaneous with a “type” need not be aware that the person/thing/institution is serving that function in God’s redemptive program.

 

5. “Types” may be either horizontal or vertical. The horizontal types are more frequent (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-13; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Pt. 3:18-21). The vertical types are such that the “earthly” is the “antitype” of a heavenly, more spiritual reality (cf. Heb. 8:5; 9:24). This latter sort of “typology” is clearly an exception to the principle stated in “4.” Above.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the following explanation to be helpful in answering what does type mean?:

On 1/13/2017 at 4:32 AM, William said:

Typology is a study of types. Etymologically the word “type” is derived from the Greek word τυπος, which denotes: (1) the impression made by a blow; (2) the stamp made by a die—thus figure or image; (3) an example or pattern. The latter is the most common meaning in the Bible. It is a type which prefigures some future reality. In I Corinthians 10:6 this Greek word is employed to speak of certain Exodus events as a type of Christian life, in Romans 5:14 that Adam is a type of Christ, and in I Peter 3:21 a related word is used to indicate that Baptism is an antitype of the flood.

 

And, the following is also very reassuring to hear:

On 1/13/2017 at 4:32 AM, William said:

Typology does not denigrate the verbally inspired text. The literal sense of the text is its basis. It does not ignore the historical meaning of the Scripture

 

The following is also a very interesting thought and I can agree with the last sentence:

On 1/13/2017 at 4:32 AM, William said:

There are many types in the Old Testament that are not specifically designated as such in the New. Yet, we can be absolutely certain only of those which are identified in the New Testament.

 

Thanks for sharing a very well reasoned and articulated answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
6 hours ago, Ben Asher said:

I found the following explanation to be helpful in answering what does type mean?:

 

And, the following is also very reassuring to hear:

 

The following is also a very interesting thought and I can agree with the last sentence:

 

Thanks for sharing a very well reasoned and articulated answer.

Good to know Ben, I think those two sources are very informative. At least you'll be able to glean from them or begin to understand certain principles and methods used in Reformed theology when approaching Scripture. A lot of people refuse Typology and dismiss it as allegory and/or spiritualizing.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am guessing one of the reason a lot of people refuse or dismiss Typology is because:

Quote

Typological interpretation can be problematic because too many people call what they are doing typology when they are really employing allegory. (link)

 

and

Quote

I believe the dismissal of the typological was a reaction to abuses in popular preaching and dispensational-oriented study Bibles. This, coupled with the outlandish typological schemes in post-reformation times provided a sensible foundation for this seeming over-reaction. (link)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Typology has lead many to seeing Mary as a type of the ark.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
14 hours ago, Ben Asher said:

I am guessing one of the reason a lot of people refuse or dismiss Typology is because:

Right, abuses often lead to rejection (stereotypes, generalizations etc). For me I struggled with the unbiblical and negative theological connotations of "dispensationalism" whenever running into the actual biblical use of "dispensations". Though there is a difference between typology and allegory the thing to remember is that both typology and allegory are used biblically and dispensationalism is not. I simply refer to these as "sensitive" wording as I see this happen in various areas of theological studies. For example, besides the sensitive word(s) and/or use of dispensation(s), there's "free will", "choosing", or "choice" in Calvinism and "Predestining" etc in Arminianism.

 

13 hours ago, Becky said:

Typology has lead many to seeing Mary as a type of the ark.

The thing about various schools of theology or interpretation etc is that sometimes the principles and methods used in approaching Scripture can be established from Scripture. Though sometimes it is best to limit the use of a particular method to only where the authors had. An example of this is limiting allegory to where allegory is only used by NT authors.

 

A point of interest to me is how Dispensationalism to this day spreads like wildfire within new Fundamentalists (usually both go together). Fundamentalism (a wooden or unflexible 'literalistical' approach to scripture) rose in opposition to Liberalism specifically Post Modernism. Liberalism destroys any source text for reasons beyond what the author had intended and ironically as Ben has hinted towards Typologist are often targeted by Fundamentalist for being mistakenly Liberal and/or allegorist.

 

Typology:

 

  • The noun tupos occurs 14 times in the NT, most frequently in Paul – Rom. 5:14; 6:17; 1 Cor. 10:6; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 4:12; Titus 2:7. It is also found in Acts 7:43,44; 23:25; John 20:25; Heb. 8:5; 1 Pt. 5:3.
  • The related form antitupos occurs in Heb. 9:24; 1 Pt. 3:21.
  • The adverb tupikos is found but once in 1 Cor. 10:11.
  • The noun hupotuposis is found in 1 Tim. 1:16; 2 Tim. 1:13.

 

Allegory:

 

Galatians 4:22–26

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;[a] she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

 

Whereas dispensationalism is not:

 

The method or scheme according to which God carries out his purposes towards men is called a dispensation. There are usually reckoned three dispensations, the Patriarchal, the Mosaic or Jewish, and the Christian. (See COVENANT, Administration of.) These were so many stages in God's unfolding of his purpose of grace toward men. The word is not found with this meaning in Scripture:

 

Dr. Scofield defines a dispensation as a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. He teaches in the Scofield Bible that there are Seven Dispensations: (1) The Dispensation of Innocency: before the Fall; (2) The Dispensation of Conscience: before the Flood; (3) The Dispensation of Human Government; (4) The Dispensation of Promise: from the calling of Abraham until Mt. Sinai; (5) The Dispensation of the Law: from Mt. Sinai to the cross of Christ; (6) The Dispensation of Grace: from the cross of Christ to the Second Advent; (7) The Dispensation of the Kingdom: the Millennium.

 

But dispensations actually are biblical:

 

"A dispensation can be defined as a stage in the progressive revelation of God constituting a distinctive stewardship or rule of life." -Chafer, Lewis Sperry, Major Bible Themes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 126.

The term "dispensation" appears 4 times in the King James Bible, in 1Co. 9:17, Eph. 1:10, Eph. 3:2, and Col. 1:25.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Wikipedia Fundamentalism in the U.S.A used to mean

Quote

 

The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs traces to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the five fundamentals:

 

(1) Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this

(2) Virgin birth of Jesus

(3) Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin

(4) Bodily resurrection of Jesus

(5) Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

 

4
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

If Wikipedia's article is true then Fundamentalism has radically changed or been hijacked to mean something quite different today.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...