Zechariah 4:6
The purpose of this entry is to understand the potential meaning of Zechariah 4:6 and its contextual setting.
NET: Therefore he told me, "This is the Lord’s message to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by strength and not by power, but by my Spirit,'" says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.
NWT 2013: He then said to me: “This is the word of Jehovah to Ze·rubʹba·bel: ‘“Not by a military force, nor by power, but by my spirit,” says Jehovah of armies.
Robert Alter (The Hebrew Bible): And he answered and said to me, saying, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might and not by power but by My spirit, said the LORD of Armies.
Historical Setting: Daniel F. O'Kennedy locates the historical setting for Zechariah sometime between the second and fourth year of Darius I, which possibly occurred circa 520-518 BCE. Hebrew Bible readers will recall that the Persian king Darius governed numerous areas by means of twenty satrapies or jurisdictional districts. He used satraps (governors) to administer these provinces: "Judah (Yehud
in Aramaic) was part of the fifth satrapy called Abar Nahara. Yehud was
ruled by a governor and consisted of a greatly reduced territory
comprising Jerusalem and its environments" (O'Kennedy).
Conditions in sixth century BCE Judah apparently were less than favorable: the repatriated Jews were suffering economically, spiritually, and emotionally. So YHWH roused the prophets Haggai and Zechariah to initiate the rebuilding of Jerusalem's temple and to promote a spiritual revival in Judah. (See O'Kennedy). Along the way, the temple project would encounter much resistance from the surrounding peoples: this persecution is likely suggested by Zechariah 4:7-10.
Within the context of these events, Zerubbabel was appointed as governor of Judah and he led the Jews back to their homeland after the Babylonian Exile (Haggai 2:21). Haggai 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2 refers to him as the son of Shealtiel, but see 1 Chronicles 3:19. In any event, Zerubbabel was picked to oversee temple rebuilding in Judah; his name possibly means "seed of Babylon" or "scion of Babylon," but Zerubbabel also might have been known as Sheshbazzar, which could have been his royal court name.
The goal of this entry is not to give definitive answers to questions about Zerubbabel but rather to elucidate Zechariah 4:6: the aforementioned details simply provide a contextual setting for this important Bible verse.
Analysis of Zechariah 4:6:
וַיַּ֜עַן וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלַי֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר זֶ֚ה דְּבַר־יְהוָ֔ה אֶל־זְרֻבָּבֶ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר לֹ֤א בְחַ֙יִל֙ וְלֹ֣א בְכֹ֔חַ כִּ֣י אִם־בְּרוּחִ֔י אָמַ֖ר יְהוָ֥ה צְבָאֹֽות׃
The speaker in 4:6 is the malak of the preceding verse, who acts as angelus interpres within Zechariah's prophetic work. Verse 6 is part of the night visions given to the prophet: it encompasses the fifth night vision in the series, and it's a response to Zechariah's inquiry. The angel or messenger now speaks these fateful words to the prophet, letting him know that YHWH (Jehovah) will be the ultimate source of the temple project.
Although an angel makes the utterance, what he speaks is debar-YHWH (the Word of Jehovah): the Most High God is the prophecy's absolute source (Zechariah 4:6-9; 6:9). Furthermore, these divine words were spoken to encourage both Zechariah and Zerubbabel: the former would stir the repatriated Jews to action while the latter would lead the rebuilding of Jehovah's temple in Jerusalem. Zerubbabel was appointed not only by humans, but by God (Haggai 2:20-23).
Jehovah's angel exclaims that the temple in Jerusalem will not be constructed by human strength, or might; the Hebrew term hayil potentially signifies effectual ability/power, an army or wealth (Boda, The Book of Zechariah). See 2 Samuel 23:20; Proverbs 31:10. Hayil "is never used in relation to God’s might, but it is not by definition ungodly (cf. Exod. 18:21, 25) and can be used for God’s purposes (Judg. 6:12; Isa. 60:5)." (Boda, The Book of Zechariah)
On the other hand, Bible writers use the word koah to describe God's creative activity, power conferred by God (Isaiah 40:29; Micah 3:8), God's governance of the world, and his dealings with ancient Israel. See the BDF entry for koach/koah.
George Klein writes: The next negative, “nor by power” (be-koah) indicates human resources in a more general sense (see Neh 4:10 where the same term describes the laborers' strength).311 The preposition be (NIV “by”) indicates agency or means.312 Together, the terms “might” and “power” form a hendiadys encompassing the panoply of human resources that one might marshal in order to effect God's will.
The point is that the temple would not be rebuilt by human strength or military might, but only through/by the ruah YHWH: the work would be accomplished by God's spirit operating on Zerubbabel, Joshua the priest, and the prophets.
Carol and Eric Meyers note the use of hendiadys in Zechariah 4:6 like Klein does: they point out that hayil "often means army or military force" (page 244). So the prophetic utterance strongly decries the use of human force or ingenuity; total dependence must be on the spirit of Jehovah: "God's 'spirit' is his involvement in and control over human events" (Meyers, ibid.). Jehovah's Witnesses describe God's ruah in this context as his "active force," which is distinguished from God's power. The holy spirit of God has been operative since the beginning of creation (Genesis 1:2; Psalm 33:6), and it would be the divine force that helped Judah to have a new temple despite malaise, opposition or interference from opposers:
"These memorable words have great resonance, but how do they follow from the vision of the golden lampstand? The golden lampstand, with its seven burning oil lamps, is to be a focal point in the Temple, its light a token of God’s radiant presence in His house, in the midst of His people. Thus the rebuilding of the Temple, in difficult material conditions and perhaps with some resistance from the Persian imperial power, will be consummated through God’s spirit, which is symbolized in the lampstand. The idea of imposing obstacles that are set as naught is spelled out in the next verse" (Alter, The Hebrew Bible).
References:
https://www.sots.ac.uk/wiki/zerubbabel/
O'Kennedy, Daniel F. : http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/ote/v32n1/11.pdf
Insight on the Scriptures. Brooklyn, N.Y., U.S.A: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, International Bible Students Association, 1988. Print.
Hill, Andrew E. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2012. Print.
Klein, George. New American Commentary Vol. 21B: Zechariah (Kindle Locations 4848-4853). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Boda, Mark J. The Book of Zechariah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016.
Meyers, Carol L. and Meyers, Eric M. Haggai, Zechariah 1-8. AB 25B. New York: Doubleday, 1987.
Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible. New York: WW Norton, 2018.
22 comments:
Ezekiel 37:9 Hebrew.
As you know, both ruah and pneuma are ambiguous terms. Context heavily dictates how we render these words. Ezekiel 37:5-6 indicates that Ezekiel has breath or wind in mind, but Zechariah 4:6 has a different context although God's spirit is sometimes compared to human breath. For a NT example that parallels Ezekiel 37, see Revelation 11.
Revelation 11:11-12.
I don't think it works that way so much with Hebrew. Ezekiel 37:5-6 points out that breathing is moving. Breathing is action. Motivation is what you do and how you move.
Even when wind is blowing on land and see, how do we know it is or isn't?
One has to be careful not to imply that ruah is not some kind of puppet master.
http://demo.inwordbible.com/m9/m9hy1t96wc.htm
I don't see ruah YHWH as a puppet master, but many examples suggest the ambiguity in Hebrew, starting with Genesis 1:2 and 8:1, I believe. Most study Bibles point out the ambiguity for ruah in Ezekiel 37. A famous NT example is John 3:1-8.
To me, Zechariah 4:6 is reminiscent of how rush is used in Judges and Chronicles.
For Ezekiel, see Psalm 104:29-30.
There are many problematic terms in the flood account but I do not think that ruach as wind is one of them.
In Genesis 1:2 the key term is fluttering. As a bird stabilises itself in the air so we have that imagery of control over this action of separation.
Referencing NT verses does not tell us much, imo its meaning had changed significantly & that is why I posted the link regarding its over usage and changed understanding in the DSS.
IMO Exodus 28:3 needs to be contemplated when trying to interpret Zec 4:6. Wisdom and/or cunning.
I've posted on the issues before where Genesis is concerned. Just for review:
Regarding Genesis 1:2, Von Rad believes ruach elohim is best rendered "storm of God," with the construction being understood as a reference to a "terrible storm" (i.e., to be construed as a superlative).
In terms of translational possibilities, Kenneth A. Matthews says that ruach elohim could mean "the wind of God" in Gen. 1:2 although he is doubtful of this understanding (see his NA Commentary).
NRSV: "the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters."
Footnote from NRSV: "Or while the spirit of God or while a mighty wind"
Catholic NABRE: "and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters"
Part of the Ftn for 1:2 in the NABRE: "A mighty wind: literally, 'spirit or breath [ruah] of God'; cf. Gn 8:1."
"and God's breath hovering over the waters" (Robert Alter)
But in the footnote comment on 1:2, when discussing the rendering "hovering," Alter offers these remarks:
"The verb attached to God's breath-wind-spirit (ruah) elsewhere describes an eagle fluttering over its young and so might have a connotation of parturition or nurture as well as rapid back-and-forth movement."
E.A. Speiser supplies these comments:
"An awesome wind. Heb. ruah means primarily 'wind, breeze,' secondarily 'breath,' and thus ultimately 'spirit.' But the last connotation is more concrete than abstract; in the present context, moreover, it appears to be out of place--see H.M. Orlinsky, JQR 47 (1957), 174-82. The appended elohim can be either possessive ('of/from God), or adjectival ('divine, supernatural, awesome'; but not simply 'mighty'); cf. XXX 8."
Similar issues arise for Gen. 8:1.
I only referenced the NT verse to illustrate similar ambiguity: study after study argues that ruah is just as ambiguous as pneuma. I also don't think we can rightfully disconnect the Hebrew term from the Greek. They existed within the same cultural milieu, but at any rate, they both seem to be ambiguous.
Exodus 28:3 is an interesting point of comparison, but IMO, Zechariah 4:6 screams that it's God's work, his force/spirit and not any human force or effort ultimately involved. The whole context supports the understanding that God is the one working and willing although man keeps his free volition.
I don't know if this was your point from Exod 28:3, but it credits Jehovah God with giving them wisdom/cunning rather than being human wisdom with respect to its origin/source. If that's what you mean, then I'd agree although I lean toward the spirit in Zechariah 4:6 being a manifestation of divine power too. Mark Boda connects the use of "spirit" here with Jehovah's prophetic work and the power it supplies to God's servants.
Please note what one rabbi writes about the ambiguity of ruah/ruach in Ezek. 37: https://books.google.com/books?id=GaSxyPy2LKEC&pg=PT105&lpg=PT105&dq=ezekiel+37:9+ruach+ambiguity&source=bl&ots=9YBjDa0drQ&sig=ACfU3U33NwsWqvUYXiVSlcckvyd0HXM3-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6pPChxdbwAhWshOAKHS6UBO8Q6AEwCXoECAUQAw#v=onepage&q=ezekiel%2037%3A9%20ruach%20ambiguity&f=false
What Alter had to say was interesting. I had not looked that up. But the naturalist observation is what matters here as the Hebrews would have seen it just as we can today. See - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j6OsP7zL6w
Precise control.
But for Deut 32:11 an eagle does not literally carry its young. See:-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKhecnxWKxg
Again, the mother shows the young what to do and displays impressive control. She has wisdom of the wind.
As for storm of god, he is clearly trying to parallel with the Mesopotamian myths - I think it is Enlil (mighty wind) Picking up dust, the winds create storms that upset and confound Tiamat (the deep?).
For Exodus 28:3 I was not thinking about the who but rather the what. Wind of wisdom. As wind is action/motivation.
It's a very controversial proposition to claim that the Hebrews would have seen things as we do today: the observation of each age is marked by its presuppositions, current knowledge, and scientific capacities. For instance, David saw relatively few stars with the naked eye and he did not have a basic telescope or knowledge of stars that would become available to the Greeks. The ancient knowledge of birds was much different from ours too.
I believe wisdom is communicated by divine ruah/ruach: is the word ever used to denote "wisdom"? See Isa. 11:1ff.
Don't have time to review Von Rad's commentary now, but I took his argument to be grammatical, not to try harmonizing Genesis with Mesopotamian myths. Maybe I'm wrong, but one can think "wind" is the proper translation for Gen. 1:2; 8:1 without buying into the ancient myths. "Wind" just fits the semantic domain for ruah.
We've talked about wind as action/motivation before: I don't understand the basis for that claim, what it's rationale is, or the evidence for the claim. I also wonder how we can separate the who from the what in Exodus 28:3. Yes, we can abstract from the ultimate source of wisdom, but why? The verse identifies Jehovah as the one who provided the skill/wisdom through his spirit.
Another thought from Alan J. Hauser:
One of the significant terms in this Scriptural passage is "wind". The Hebrew word translated "wind" is ruach. Some translations render ruach as "spirit" or "active force." Either translation is philologically acceptable. Based on the context of Genesis 1:2, however, Hauser opts for ruach meaning "wind" in this case. He bases his conclusions on the use of ruach in Genesis 6:17; 7:15; 7:22. In early church usage, it seems that there was an extensive debate about how ruach should be translated. Hauser relates: "a number of early church fathers favored 'spirit'; Tertullian vacilated; Epharaem and Theodoret favored 'wind.'" See W.H. McClellan, "The Meaning of Ruah 'Elohim in Gen. 1:2," Biblica 15 (1936) 519-20. H.M. Orlinsky, "The Plain Meaning of RUAH in Gen. 1:2," Jewish Quarterly Review 48, 174-80, cites numerous commentators . . . who argue for "wind" (129).
It is also good to note that ruach is translated "breath" in Psalm
18:15 with reference to the "breath" of God. Concerning God's "breath," Hauser explains:
"unlike the breath of all flesh, the breath (ruach) of God is clearly a powerful force, one that can shake the cosmos. Combined in the idea of the "breath of God" are the analogies of breath (as in human breath) and of a powerful wind" (114).
[See Numbers 11:31]
This paper dealing with Gen. 1:2 indciates that Von Rad's arguments are largely grammatical: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/38509
"It's a very controversial proposition to claim that the Hebrews would have seen things as we do today" - I am not sure what you mean here?
This is not about interpretation but what one literally sees, as per the videos. They did see what we can see. These are basic commonalities. If you look at different ancient texts these observations my be employed in different ways. Each author may have there own spin.
For a Greek example, see:- Hall, J. J. (1982). Ancient Knowledge of the Birds Now Known at Lake Stymphalus. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 102(), 235–. doi:10.2307/631152
As for the number of stars that can be seen, in a clear desert sky without the moon - more than you might think.
https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/4/90933/Eagles-the-worshipped-bird-of-prey-of-the-ancient-civilizations
This demonstrates a possibility of why the imagery would have been used at all.
One has to wonder why Hauser does not speak of the Psalm 18:15 as also possibly meaning the "wind of anger" ?
I'm saying that not every person or culture perceives things the same way: neuroscience and psychology support this datum. We perceive colors differently and animals. Even the bible suggests the Hebrews had a unique perception and conception of the world.
I will check out your link above, but there's no way that the ancient Hebrews perceived stars like Aristarchus, Ptolemy or Galileo did.
https://medium.com/predict/how-many-stars-are-really-visible-5e1434590de6
Post a Comment