“They
Shall Look upon Me Whom They Have Pierced”
A Defense of the
Trinitarian Reading of Zechariah 12:10
1. Introduction
and Background
Zechariah
12:10 in Context:
The verse Zechariah 12:10 presents a striking prophetic oracle: “And I
will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit
of grace and supplication. They shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and
they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only son…”. In the context of
Zechariah 12, Yahweh (the LORD) is clearly the speaker (see
Zech 12:1). Thus, on a straightforward reading, God identifies Himself
as the one “pierced” and foresees a future national mourning over this
piercing. Historic Christian interpretation has viewed this as a messianic
prophecy fulfilled in Jesus Christ—specifically in His crucifixion—thereby implying
the unity of Christ with Yahweh (a foundational Trinitarian claim). The New
Testament echoes this verse in reference to Jesus’ death (John 19:37) and
Second Coming (Revelation 1:7), reinforcing the link between the “pierced”
one and Christ. This Trinitarian reading holds that “they shall look
upon Me whom they have pierced” refers to God the Son incarnate, who
was pierced on the cross, consistent with Christian doctrine that Jesus is true
God and true man.
The
Controversy:
Opponents of this interpretation—including Jehovah’s Witnesses, modern Arians,
and many Jewish scholars—argue that this verse cannot imply God Himself
was pierced. They raise linguistic, textual, and theological objections:
(1) Grammatical: Some claim the Hebrew wording is “unintelligible” or
impossible if “Me” (אֵלַי, elay) is the object of “pierced,” contending the verse must be
read as “look upon him whom they pierced.” (2) Textual: It is
pointed out that a few late Hebrew manuscripts and several modern translations
(RSV, NRSV, etc.) indeed read “him” instead of “me,” aligning with a
non-Trinitarian understanding. (3) Theological: Critics argue that God
is immortal and impassible (cannot die or suffer); thus, they reject the idea
of God being pierced, accusing Trinitarians of either misreading the text or
committing Patripassianism (the heresy that the Father Himself suffered
on the cross). Jewish exegesis often prefers to see the verse as Israel
“looking to God” for help because someone else was pierced—for example,
viewing the “pierced” figure as a righteous martyr or the Messiah ben Joseph (a
suffering messiah in Jewish tradition), but not identifying that figure
with God.
Thesis
and Approach: In
this article, we mount a comprehensive defense of the Trinitarian reading
of Zechariah 12:10, demonstrating that the Masoretic Text’s plain sense
supports “Me” as the object of piercing, and that this reading is both
grammatically and theologically coherent when understood in light of Christ’s
incarnation. We will refute the linguistic objections regarding the direct
object marker אֵת (’et) and the relative clause אשר דקרו (“whom they pierced”), address
text-critical evidence (including Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Targum
readings), and confront the claims of Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who insist
the verse must read “him.” We will engage with alternative renderings in the LXX,
Aquila, Symmachus, the New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS) Tanakh,
and the RSV/NRSV translations, showing that none of these undermine the
original meaning but rather reflect interpretive choices. Furthermore, we will
enlist patristic testimony (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, et al.) to
illustrate how the early Church understood the verse. Finally, we will explore
the theological implications, including the principle of communicatio
idiomatum (the communication of attributes in Christ), to explain how God
can be said to be “pierced” without violating His impassible nature.
Throughout, we will demonstrate that the Trinitarian reading not only
withstands critical scrutiny but provides the most coherent and profound
fulfillment of this prophecy in the person of Jesus Christ.
2. The
Hebrew Text and Grammar of Zechariah 12:10
Masoretic
Text Reading: The
Masoretic Hebrew text of Zechariah 12:10 reads (in transliteration): “...vehibbītu
’ēlay ’ēt ’ăšer daqarū, ve-sāpedū ‘ālav ke-mispēd ‘al ha-yāḥid...” – literally, “...and they will look to Me,
whom they pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an
only [son]….” The crucial portion for our purposes is “אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר דָּקָרוּ” (’elay ’et ’ăšer daqaru). Here, אֵלַי (’elay) means “to me” or “unto me,” and אֶת אֲשֶׁר (’et ’ăšer) together function to introduce a
relative clause “whom…”. The phrase can be translated as “to me [whom] they
have pierced.” In Hebrew grammar, ’et is the accusative marker used
to mark definite direct objects, and ’ăšer is a relative pronoun
(“that/which/who/whom”). When ’et immediately precedes ’ăšer, it
often signifies that the relative pronoun is the object of the preceding verb.
In other words, ’et ’ăšer in this construction can mean “the one whom.”
Indeed, scholars of Hebrew syntax classify clauses of this type as “independent
relative clauses” where ’ăšer and its clause supply a substantive
meaning (“he whom…”) without an explicit antecedent. Thus, a straightforward
literal rendering is: “They will look unto Me – [the one] whom they pierced”,
effectively identifying the “Me” as the one who was pierced.
Grammatical
Objections Addressed:
Critics argue that “’elay ’et ’ăšer” (literally “to me whom”) is
grammatically awkward or “unintelligible” if taken to mean the speaker is the
one pierced. The Gesenius Hebrew Grammar (a standard reference) once
suggested emending the text, proposing ’el ăšer (“to him whom”) in place
of ’elay ’et ’ăšer, precisely because ’elay ’et ’ăšer was deemed
difficult. However, modern Hebrew scholarship recognizes that the Masoretic
reading, though rare in structure, is not impossible. The construction can be
seen as a form of grammatical apposition or shifted syntax: the pronoun
“Me” is stated, then immediately qualified by the relative clause “whom they
pierced.” Old Testament linguists note that Hebrew prophecy sometimes yields
such abrupt shifts in person for dramatic effect. In Zechariah 12:10, Yahweh
speaks in first person (“look unto Me”) and then the prophecy shifts to
describe mourning for “him” in third person – a transition that, while
initially jarring, can be understood as a literary device where the narrative
perspective zooms out to describe the people’s reaction to the pierced one (who
is in fact Yahweh in the drama of the prophecy). Far from being “unintelligible,”
the Hebrew text can indeed bear the meaning that Yahweh is the one pierced
– a point acknowledged by conservative scholars like Franz Delitzsch: “The
suffix in אֵלַי (’elay*,
‘to Me’) refers to the speaker – Jehovah, according to verse 1, the
Creator of heaven and earth. אֵת אֲשֶׁר דָּקָרוּ does not mean ‘Him whom they pierced,’ but simply ‘whom they
pierced.’”. Delitzsch affirms that “Me” is the correct subject and that the ’et
’ăšer clause indeed refers back to that same subject (Yahweh) who is
pierced.
It is
important to observe that none of the pronouns or suffixes in the Hebrew
text are grammatically unworkable. The pronoun “Me” (אֵלַי) is clearly first person singular,
referring to the speaker (Yahweh). The switch to “him” (עָלָיו, ’alav, “for him” or “over
him”) in “they shall mourn for him” does introduce a change in reference
that needs explanation – but this shift of person does not nullify the
initial clause. Many commentators understand that the shift from first person
(“Me”) to third person (“him”) reflects how the people, at the future moment in
question, will regard the one whom they pierced: although He is God
(hence “look unto Me”), they will perceive Him and mourn for Him as one who had
been slain among them (hence speaking of Him in the third person as a distinct
individual). In other words, the text deliberately oscillates between
identifying the victim as Yahweh and as a separate figure – a paradoxical
presentation that is utterly fitting from a Christian perspective (God the Son
incarnate, distinct in person yet one in being with the Father), but
challenging from a non-Trinitarian perspective. The apparent pronoun dissonance
is theologically significant (as we will explore), but grammatically it can be
construed as a form of enallage (intentional grammatical shift) or as
Zechariah inserting an explanatory comment about the mourning. Some expositors
suggest that after “look upon Me whom they pierced,” the phrase “they shall
mourn for him…” might be Zechariah’s own narration of the peoples’ response
(hence using “him”). Regardless of the exact nuance, the Masoretic text as
it stands is intelligible: the people will look toward Yahweh, who was
pierced, and as a result, will mourn over Him deeply, like mourning
for an only son.
The Rule
of the More Difficult Reading: Textual critics often invoke the principle of lectio difficilior
potior (“the more difficult reading is stronger”), meaning that scribes
were more likely to smooth out a perplexing text than to create a perplexity.
In this case, if “to Me whom they pierced” seemed awkward or
theologically problematic, copyists or translators might alter it to “to him
whom they pierced” to alleviate the issue. Indeed, this is exactly what appears
to have occurred in some streams of transmission (as we will see below). It is not
plausible that a scribe would deliberately change an original “him” to “Me,”
thereby creating a problem (since that would ascribe piercing to God).
Thus the very strangeness of “look upon Me whom they pierced” argues for its
authenticity – it is the harder reading, and yet it is preserved in all the
earliest textual witnesses (the Masoretic text, the oldest translations, etc.).
One scholar notes, “No one in their right mind would change an original
‘him’ and replace it with ‘me’ just to make life easier! Thus the more
difficult reading is likely to have been the original, and should be kept.”.
This aligns with the fact that Jewish tradition overwhelmingly retained “Me”
in this verse despite the theological challenges it raised – a strong
indication that the Hebrew text was understood to say “Me” all along.
Alternate
Grammatical Explanations: Some modern translators, uncomfortable with the literal reading but
wishing to retain fidelity to the Hebrew, have rendered the phrase as “look
unto Me because they have pierced him” (or “on Me, regarding him
whom they pierced”). For example, the New JPS Tanakh translates: “they
shall look toward Me, because those whom they have pierced, they shall mourn
for him…”, effectively inserting a causal sense (“because”) that is not
explicitly present in the Hebrew but is an attempt to interpret ’et ’ăšer
differently. The Hebrew particle ’ăšer can in a few cases carry a causal
meaning (“because”), but this usage is not common. The Stone Edition Tanach
(ArtScroll) similarly renders “they will look toward Me, regarding those whom
they have pierced,” qualifying “Me” with an explanatory clause. These
translational choices reflect an interpretation that distinguishes the
object of looking (“Me,” i.e. God) from the one pierced (“him”), thus
avoiding a direct identification of the two. However, such renderings are
driven more by theological concerns than by grammatical necessity. The
Hebrew text does not explicitly say “because” – it straightforwardly says “look
to Me whom they pierced” according to normal syntax. The New English
Bible (NEB) interestingly tried to preserve both pronouns: “they will
look on me, on him whom they have pierced”, essentially paraphrasing ’elay
’et ’ăšer as if it were “on me – i.e. on him whom they pierced”. This
rendering actually captures the appositional sense well: “me” and
“him…pierced” refer to the same entity, stated first in first person and then
in third person for clarification. Similarly, the ESV and NET Bible
translate, “they will look on Me, on him whom they have pierced”
(ESV) and “they will look to me, the one they have pierced”
(NET), effectively equating “Me” with “the one pierced.” This approach is
consonant with the Trinitarian reading, treating the clause as identifying
Yahweh with the pierced one. In summary, from a purely grammatical
standpoint, the Masoretic text permits (and we argue, intends) the
interpretation that Yahweh Himself is the one who was pierced. The pronoun
shifts can be explained as literary style, and are not unprecedented in
prophetic texts that weave between voices and perspectives.
3. Textual
Witnesses and Variants
The next
line of inquiry is whether the original Hebrew text actually said “look upon Me”
or “look upon him.” We examine the relevant textual evidence: the
Masoretic Hebrew tradition, other Hebrew manuscript variants, the ancient Greek
versions (Septuagint and later Jewish Greek translators), the Aramaic Targum,
and references in the New Testament.
Masoretic
Text and Hebrew Manuscripts: The Masoretic Text (MT), which is the basis for most modern Old
Testament translations, clearly reads ’elay (“to me”) in
Zechariah 12:10. All major manuscripts of the MT (such as the Aleppo Codex
and Leningrad Codex) have this reading. Are there any Hebrew manuscripts that
read “to him” (’elav, אליו) instead? The critical apparatus of the Hebrew Bible (BHS) notes
that a few late medieval manuscripts and marginal glosses attest אֵלָיו (“to him”) as an alternative
reading. Scholar F.F. Bruce confirms that “the reading ‘him’ instead of
‘me’ appears in a few Hebrew manuscripts.”. However, these are relatively late
corrections. They likely represent scribes or commentators who, troubled by
the idea that God could be pierced or noticing the New Testament’s wording,
amended the text or noted a variant. Crucially, no known ancient Hebrew
manuscript (e.g. from the Dead Sea Scrolls) has been found to substantiate an
original “to him.” (Zechariah 12:10 is not extant in the Dead Sea Scroll
fragments we have, so our oldest direct witness remains the versions.) The fact
that virtually the entire Hebrew manuscript tradition – including the ancient
Targum and Jewish commentators – preserved “look unto Me” strongly
suggests this was the authentic text. The late emergence of “to him” in a
handful of manuscripts is best explained as an attempt to harmonize the text
with expected grammar or theology, not as the original reading. In
textual criticism terms, “Me” is the lectio dificilior (more difficult
reading) and thus more likely original, whereas “him” is the easier reading
that arose secondarily.
Septuagint
(Old Greek) Translation: The Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation made by Jewish
scholars in the pre-Christian era (3rd–2nd century BC), provides a window into
how ancient Jews read this verse. The LXX of Zechariah 12:10, however, is
notably divergent. The extant LXX text reads: “…they shall look to me
because they have mocked (or insulted) [me], and they shall mourn
for him as one mourns for a beloved….”. Specifically, the Greek has “epiblépsontai
pros mé anth’ hōn katōrchēsanto” – literally, “they will look toward
me for what/insomuch as they have danced/triumphantly mocked” – and then
“and they will wail over him…”. Instead of “pierced” the LXX uses a verb
meaning “to dance in triumph” or by extension “to mock/deride” (Greek κατωρχήσαντο).
This suggests the LXX translator either had a different Hebrew word or
misunderstood the Hebrew דקרו (daqaru, “pierced”). Most scholars believe the LXX reading arose from a textual
confusion: the Hebrew letters for “pierced” (דקר, dqr) may have been misread
or transposed to resemble רקד (rqd),
meaning “to leap/dance.” Indeed, the Greek translator appears to have read
something like rāqaru (“they danced/insulted”) instead of daqaru
(“they pierced”), resulting in the odd translation “they looked to me because
of their dancing/mockery”. This is further supported by the translator’s
use of the unique Greek word katorchēsanto, a hapax legomenon in LXX
found only here, which corresponds to “danced in triumph”. Thus, the LXX as we
have it does not explicitly mention “piercing” at all. It does, however,
still have “look upon me” (pros me) and then speaks of mourning for
“him.” The LXX therefore splits the referents: people look toward God (whom
they had offended), and mourn for some other figure (“him”). Some later
commentators (and anti-Trinitarians) have seized on the LXX to argue that the
one looked at is not the one mourned – implying two different subjects.
But it is important to note that the LXX’s divergence was likely not a
deliberate anti-Christian ploy (since it predates Christianity), but rather a translational
or textual issue. Even so, the earliest Greek evidence we have – the
Septuagint – still reads “look to Me”, preserving the first person
pronoun. There is no evidence that the LXX translator was troubled by “to Me”
in Hebrew; instead, he stumbled over “pierced.” This means the idea of God
being “pierced” may have been so unexpected that the translator inadvertently
rendered a different sense, or his Hebrew text was variant.
Notably, by
using “mocked” instead of “pierced,” the LXX somewhat dilutes the prophecy’s
literal correspondence to crucifixion, but it also removes the shocking
claim of God being wounded. Some scholars theorize that later Jewish scribes
or translators might have adjusted the text to avoid the anthropomorphic notion
of God being pierced. However, if such an adjustment influenced the LXX, it
was done by changing the verb, not the pronoun. The LXX as preserved (e.g. in
Codex Vaticanus, 4th century AD) says, “they shall look upon me, because
they have mocked”. Early Christian writers were aware that the LXX of
Zechariah 12:10 “missed the point” on the piercing; one modern commentator
notes, “the [LXX] otherwise misses the point of the passage”. The LXX’s
“mocked” could be seen as a foreshadowing of Christ being mocked by
onlookers rather than the act of piercing Him; but the New Testament writers
did not follow the LXX here, as we’ll discuss.
Aquila,
Symmachus, and Theodotion (Greek Revisions): By the second century AD, in the wake of
Christian claims, Jewish scholars produced new Greek translations of the
Hebrew Bible, partly to provide alternatives to the Septuagint which Christians
were using. These translators—Aquila (c. 130 AD), Symmachus
(late 2nd century), and Theodotion (late 2nd century)—often give us
insight into the Hebrew text as they understood it. Fragments of their versions
of Zechariah 12:10 are preserved (notably via Origen’s Hexapla and later
citations):
- Aquila was known for extreme
literalism, often placing a Greek word for each Hebrew word. According to
the Hexapla fragments, Aquila rendered the phrase in an awkward
word-for-word manner: “σὺν ᾧ ἐξεκέντησαν” … “and they will mourn for
him”. Aquila is said to translate the accusative marker ’et with
the Greek preposition σύν (“with”) routinely. Thus his Greek
implies “[look] with whom they pierced”, which is not smooth Greek,
but he likely retained “Me” in some form. (It’s possible Aquila’s
full translation was, “They shall look at me (συν ᾧ) whom they pierced…”, but the
fragment is incomplete.) What is clear is that Aquila used the Greek
verb “pierced” (ἐξεκέντησαν) corresponding to Hebrew daqaru, correcting the LXX’s
“mocked.” And he included the relative pronoun “whom.” The presence of ἐξεκέντησαν (“pierced”) in Aquila shows that the
Hebrew text he had read “pierced” (daqaru) and not some other word. As
for the pronoun, Aquila’s wording is cryptic, but the overall sense
likely still ties the piercing to the one being looked at.
- Theodotion is especially interesting
because some scholars think John’s New Testament citation aligns with
Theodotion’s style. Theodotion’s fragment reads: “πρός με ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν καὶ κόψονται αὐτόν” – “[they will look] to
me, whom they pierced, and they will mourn for him.”. This is
essentially a literal rendering of the Masoretic text: he
explicitly has “to me” (πρός με) followed by “whom they pierced” (ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν). Thus, Theodotion upholds
the “Me” reading, directly identifying the one looked upon as the one
pierced. His version only differs from the MT in that Greek grammar allows
the relative clause without repeating “to me.” Notably, the Apostle
John’s citation in John 19:37 – “They shall look on him whom
they pierced” – is almost a perfect match for Theodotion’s
Greek, except that John uses a slightly different preposition (εἰς, “on” instead of πρός, “to”).
There is evidence that Theodotion’s version existed by John’s time or that
John and Theodotion drew from a common translation tradition. In any case,
Theodotion confirms the ancient Jewish understanding still read the
text as “me … whom they pierced.”
- Symmachus, who favored idiomatic Greek,
appears to have rendered the clause in a paraphrastic way. His fragment
says: “ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεξεκέντησαν καὶ κόψονται αὐτόν” – which could be understood as
“[they will look] before (or ‘in the presence of’) the one whom
they pierced, and they will mourn for him.”. The wording is odd;
possibly Symmachus took ’elay (“to me”) in a sense of “before me”
or “in my presence,” using ἔμπροσθεν (“before”). Another scholarly
suggestion is that Symmachus understood ’elay as an emphatic marker
and focused on the piercing: essentially, “they shall look (perhaps
implicitly to God) upon the one whom they pierced.” Symmachus’
translation is less clear in tying the “me” to the “pierced” one; it might
be an attempt to avoid a direct identification while still translating
faithfully. Importantly, Symmachus also has the verb “pierced” (ἐπεξεκέντησαν, a compound of ἐξεκέντησαν), confirming daqaru
as the Hebrew.
In summary,
the Three Jewish Greek versions uniformly testify that the Hebrew said
“pierced” and included a first-person reference. Aquila and Theodotion
explicitly preserve “to me” (with Aquila’s ultra-literal style making it a bit
opaque, and Theodotion’s clear “pros me”). Symmachus, though phrasing it
differently, does not substitute “me” with “him” in a simple way; he rather couches
it as “before the one…”. This aligns with the notion that no early Jewish
source removed “Me” from the text, even if they struggled with its
implications.
Targum
Jonathan (Aramaic):
The Targum Jonathan on the Prophets (an Aramaic paraphrase traditionally
dating from the early centuries AD) also sheds light on Jewish interpretation.
Targum Jonathan often makes explicit interpretive additions, and notably it
identifies the pierced figure as the Messiah. According to citations in
rabbinic literature, the Targum rendered Zech 12:10 in a way such as: “They
shall look to Me and will inquire of Me why the nations pierced the Messiah son
of Ephraim, and they shall mourn for him…”. One late gloss of the Targum
(perhaps added a few centuries later) still has God speaking in first person: “And
they shall look to me and shall inquire of me why the nations pierced the
Messiah son of Ephraim.”. This is remarkable: the Targumist, being a
Jewish interpreter, fully acknowledges “to Me” in the text and even puts an
explanation in God’s mouth, attributing the piercing to “the nations” harming
“Messiah son of Ephraim.” “Messiah son of Ephraim” (or Joseph) is the
suffering messianic figure in some Jewish eschatological traditions. Thus, the
Targum has God saying in effect: the people will turn to God asking about
why Messiah ben Ephraim was pierced, and the people mourn for that Messiah.
Here the Targum separates God and the Messiah into distinct persons (avoiding a
christological fusion), but significantly, the Targum did not erase the
“look to Me” – God is still the one to whom they turn in repentance. This
shows that even those uncomfortable with a literal “God was pierced” kept the
text intact and explained it via a theological scenario (God responds
about the death of Messiah ben Joseph). In other words, Jewish exegesis
treated “Me” as authentic, and dealt with the pronoun issue by positing
that the piercing was of the Messiah (a figure closely associated with God’s
redemptive plan, though not identified as God in Targum). The Babylonian
Talmud (Sukkah 52a) likewise discusses this verse, saying: “What is the
cause of the mourning [in Zech 12:10]? … It is well according to him who
explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that
well agrees with the Scripture, ‘And they shall look upon Me… because
they have thrust him through, and shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only
son.’”. Here the Talmud explicitly quotes the verse (with “Me” and “him”)
and applies it to the slaying of Messiah ben Joseph. The rabbis did not contend
that the text should say “him” instead of “me”; they accepted the “Me” as
God speaking, and explained “him” as referring to the Messiah’s death. This
is very telling: Jewish tradition itself, though not drawing a Trinitarian
conclusion, essentially interpreted the text in a way that involves both God
and the Messiah in the piercing – which in a sense converges on the
Christian understanding (where Jesus the Messiah is God in the flesh, pierced
by sinners).
Modern
Critical Emendations:
A few modern critical scholars (e.g., S. R. Driver and others) have
suggested that the Masoretic text might be corrupt and have proposed to change
it to “look upon him” outright. But such conjectural emendations have not been
strongly supported by manuscript evidence. The NJPS translation and some
liberal commentators opted for “look to Me because they have pierced
him” as noted, effectively working with the Masoretic consonants but reading ’asher
as causal. This is an interpretive choice rather than a text-critical one. On
the whole, the weight of textual evidence (MT, LXX, Aquila, Theodotion,
Targum, Talmud) upholds the reading “look upon Me,” whereas “look
upon him” appears only in a minor subset of late sources likely
influenced by either Christian usage or internal logic. The Revised Standard
Version (RSV) in 1952 famously rendered Zech 12:10 as “when they
look on him whom they have pierced”, citing support from John 19:37
and the “few Hebrew manuscripts” with ‘him’. F. F. Bruce defended the
RSV’s choice by noting the NT evangelist “knew the passage” in that form and
that it avoids the theological difficulty of identifying the speaker as
pierced. However, Bruce admits “the reading ‘me’ is certainly quite early,
for it appears in the Septuagint”. In fact, Bruce candidly observes that if
“me” is retained, it would anticipate the Christian doctrine of Christ’s
divinity (which is precisely what many of us maintain). The RSV’s decision was
controversial; later translations like the ESV reverted to the Masoretic
“me” (with an appositional “on him” added), and even the NRSV (1989) added a
margin note “Hebrew: on me” to its main text “the one whom they have pierced”.
This trajectory shows that the trend in scholarship has been to acknowledge
“me” as the authentic text, even if some prefer a theologically less direct
rendering in English.
In
conclusion of the textual inquiry, Zechariah 12:10 as originally
written said “they will look unto Me” – and that “Me” is grammatically the one
who was pierced. The shift to “him” in the second clause is part of the
literary portrayal and does not require us to change the first clause.
Maintaining the integrity of the text, we find it presents a profound mystery: Yahweh
is pierced, yet the people mourn as over a separate individual. This
mystery aligns with the Christian revelation of the Incarnation, where the
Messiah is both identical with Yahweh in divine identity and yet distinct
in person (the Son of God, who can be referred to in the third person
relative to God the Father). We now turn to how early Christian witnesses
understood this prophecy in light of Christ.
4. Patristic
Testimony: Early Christian Understanding of Zech 12:10
From the
earliest days, Christians read Zechariah 12:10 as a prophecy of Christ’s
Passion. The verse’s fulfillment was seen in the piercing of Jesus’ hands,
feet, and side at the crucifixion and in the future recognition of Jesus by
those who pierced Him. It is instructive to see how the Apostolic Fathers
and Ante-Nicene Fathers handled the verse, especially since Jehovah’s
Witness apologists often claim that those same Church Fathers did not
insist on the “me” reading but quoted “him” (implying that the “me”
interpretation was not an early Christian idea). We will show that while the
Fathers quote the verse with “him” (as it appears in the narrative form in
John’s Gospel), they unequivocally apply it to Christ and, by doing so, affirm
the lofty identity of the one pierced.
Ignatius
of Antioch (c. AD 107): Ignatius, an Apostolic Father, in his Epistle to the Trallians,
argues against Docetism (the view that Jesus only appeared to suffer). He
emphasizes that Christ truly suffered and died in the flesh. In this context,
he invokes Zechariah 12:10 as prophetic proof of the reality of Christ’s
passion: “Then also does the prophet [Zechariah] in vain declare, ‘They
shall look on Him whom they have pierced, and mourn over themselves as
over one beloved’?”. Ignatius uses the pronoun “Him” (not “Me”), which is
natural since he is referring to the prophecy as fulfilled in Jesus (speaking
of Jesus in third person). Yet importantly, Ignatius explicitly identifies the
subject of “whom they pierced” as Christ. By saying “the
prophet…declare[s] ‘they shall look on Him whom they pierced,’” Ignatius
affirms this is about Jesus’ crucifixion being foretold. He does not stop to
explain the pronoun discrepancy; apparently for him it posed no problem—Christ
is the one pierced, and Christ is Lord (Ignatius elsewhere calls Christ “my
God”). In Ignatius’s mind, Zechariah’s oracle was not fulfilled by some
mere human or by a metaphor; it was literally fulfilled when the people
looked at Jesus on the cross and later will recognize Him whom they pierced.
This implies that the early post-apostolic church saw Jesus’ crucifixion as
the moment the prophecy began to come to pass, thereby implicitly linking
Jesus with the “Me” (Yahweh) of the text, even if the citation is made as “Him”
in writing.
Irenaeus
of Lyons (c. AD 180): Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp (who knew John), wrote Against
Heresies and the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. He too
applies Zech 12:10 to Christ. In Against Heresies IV.33.11,
Irenaeus surveys various OT prophecies of Christ’s two comings. He says of the
prophets: “Those who declared regarding Him, ‘They shall look on Him whom
they have pierced,’ indicated His [second] advent…”. Irenaeus understands “They
shall look on Him whom they pierced” as pointing to Christ’s Second Coming in
glory, when those who crucified or rejected Him will recognize Him. He even
quotes Christ’s own words about the Son of Man coming (Luke 18:8) in
tandem with Zech 12:10, and connects it to the Apostle Paul’s description
of Jesus’ revelation from heaven. What is notable is Irenaeus uses “Him” as
well (again, logical in context), but the antecedent of “Him” is clearly
Jesus. By saying “the prophet had said this already, ‘They shall look on
Him whom they pierced,’” Irenaeus makes Zechariah’s Yahweh-speech a direct
prophecy of Jesus. This shows no hesitation in identifying Jesus with Yahweh’s
role in that prophecy. Irenaeus did not opine that the text should read “him”
versus “me” – he simply quotes it in the form that John’s Gospel presents it
(John says “they shall look on the one whom they pierced” in third
person) and expounds it. Therefore, one of the earliest Christian
theologians reads Zech 12:10 as God speaking about being pierced and sees
it fulfilled in Jesus. This is fundamentally a Trinitarian reading, even if
Irenaeus doesn’t spell out the pronoun argument.
Tertullian
(c. AD 200): Tertullian, an early Latin father, frequently quotes or alludes to
Zech 12:10, especially when defending the reality of Christ’s flesh and
the resurrection. In On the Resurrection of the Flesh (Chap. 25),
addressing those who allegorize biblical promises, he writes: “It is
written: ‘For they shall look on Him whom they pierced.’ If indeed it be
thought that these passages were spoken simply of the element earth (terra)…
how can it be consistent…?”. Here Tertullian argues that prophetic
references to “earth” trembling and “looking on him whom they pierced” should
be understood as referring to people (flesh), not the literal ground—thus, he
uses Zech 12:10 plainly as a prophecy of people looking at the crucified
Christ, not some metaphor. He quotes the clause exactly (“look on Him whom they
pierced”). Elsewhere, in the same treatise, Tertullian speaks of Christ’s
future return and says Jesus will come in the same form and substance, “so
as even to be recognized by those who pierced Him”. This clearly echoes
Zech 12:10/Rev 1:7; Tertullian expects that those who were
responsible (the Jews/Romans) will see and recognize the very one they harmed.
Notably, in Against Praxeas (which deals with Trinitarian doctrine
against a modalist), Tertullian also quotes Zech 12:10 in passing while
describing the distinction of Father and Son. According to one source,
Tertullian says, “the Scripture says, ‘They shall look on Him whom they
pierced’”, attributing it to Yahweh’s voice but fulfilled in Christ. The cumulative
Tertullianic usage underscores that early Christians were untroubled
quoting “him” (as per John) but fully affirmed that “him” = Jesus, and Jesus
= Lord. Thus, indirectly, Tertullian supports the reading that it was God’s
Son who was pierced. It is important to note: the Fathers did not
“change” the text to avoid saying God was pierced; instead, they explained
how it is that God (the Son) could suffer. There is no indication of any
patristic writer saying “the text should read ‘him,’ not ‘me’.” In fact, the
slight emphasis by some that the prophecy could scandalize those with
Greek notions of divinity (as we will see) demonstrates the Fathers knew
exactly what it implied.
Other
Early Fathers:
Justin Martyr (c. AD 160) in Dialogue with Trypho likely
referenced Zech 12:10 when listing prophecies of Christ’s suffering,
noting that “they shall look on Him whom they pierced” in connection
with the piercing of Jesus’ side. Hippolytus and Cyprian also considered
Zech 12:10 messianic. By the Nicene era, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem,
and others quote the verse similarly. St. Cyril of Alexandria (5th
century), in his dialogues against Nestorius, explicitly uses Zech 12:10
to argue that the one pierced on the cross was God the Son: “for it is
written, They shall look on Him Whom they pierced”, and Cyril stresses the
point to show the unity of Christ’s person. Augustine and Jerome
likewise saw the prophecy as fulfilled in Christ and expected a future
fulfillment when the Jews would turn to Christ (using the “me” and “him” to
show Christ’s two natures or the nation’s repentance).
It’s worth
highlighting Theodoret of Cyrus (5th c.), who in his Eranistes
dialogue has an orthodox character say: “I have heard the words of the
prophet Zechariah, ‘They shall look on Him whom they pierced,’ and how shall
the event follow the prophecy unless the crucifiers recognize the nature which
they crucified?”. Theodoret uses the prophecy to teach that those who
crucified Christ will finally understand the nature of the one they
crucified – i.e. that He was divine. This interpretation explicitly ties
the pierced one’s divine nature to the prophecy. Theodoret’s
interlocutor argues that Stephen’s vision (seeing Jesus at God’s right hand)
shows only Christ’s human nature visibly; the orthodox responds that
Zech 12:10 implies they will realize they pierced God in flesh.
Such patristic reflections show that the early church read
Zechariah 12:10 as referring to Christ’s divinity (“me”) and humanity
(“him”). They saw no need to alter the wording, but rather to understand it
in light of Christ.
In sum, the
patristic witness confirms: (1) Zechariah 12:10 was universally
applied to Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and the eschatological recognition of
Christ by all, and (2) while often quoted with “him” (since the New Testament
itself cites it that way), the import was that Christ is the LORD who
spoke in Zechariah. The early church did not shy away from the implication that
“God was pierced” – instead, they explained it through correct theology of the
Trinity and the Incarnation. There is no patristic support for the idea that
“him” was the original reading or that the verse is not about God. On the
contrary, even those like Tertullian who were concerned to avoid saying
“the Father suffered” fully acknowledged that the Son, who is one with the
Father, was pierced. The Fathers thereby effectively endorse the
Trinitarian reading, seeing in Zech 12:10 a prophetic glimpse of the union
of the divine and human in Christ’s redemptive death.
It is
significant that Jehovah’s Witness apologists note the Fathers quoted
“him” and use this to claim the “me” interpretation emerged later. This is a misreading
of the evidence. The Fathers’ usage of “him” simply mirrors
John 19:37’s phrasing. Nowhere do they argue against the “me”
reading. In fact, Origen (whom the JWs admit does not quote the verse in extant
works) and others never suggest the text is corrupt; had “me” been seen as a
problem, we would expect patristic commentary on it. Instead, Fathers like Cyprian
of Carthage explicitly combined “they shall look on me” with the
context of Christ. Cyprian writes that it is the Son speaking in
Zech 12:10, and that the Jews will weep for having not believed in Him.
This again implies that “me” was understood as Christ speaking prophetically
through the prophet’s mouth – a profoundly Trinitarian concept since it equates
Christ with Yahweh the speaker.
5. New
Testament Fulfillment and the Communicatio Idiomatum
John
19:37 and the Piercing of Christ: The Gospel of John explicitly links Jesus’ crucifixion to
Zechariah 12:10. After describing the Roman soldier piercing Jesus’ side
with a spear, John writes, “These things took place that the Scripture might
be fulfilled: ‘They shall look on him whom they have pierced’”
(John 19:37). John’s citation slightly adapts the wording: “ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν” – “they shall look on him
whom they pierced.” John’s Greek uses a relative pronoun “whom” without
specifying the antecedent in the quotation (most English translations supply
“him” or “the one”). This corresponds essentially to the Hebrew ’et ’asher
daqaru (“whom they pierced”), and John’s “eis hon” (on whom) matches
the sense of Hebrew ’elay (“unto me”) in context. John, writing in the
narrative voice, naturally presents the prophecy in the third person – he is
not having God speak in first person at that moment, but rather referencing the
prophecy about Jesus. Thus, John’s use of “him” does not undermine the original
“me”; it’s a shift from direct divine speech to third-person
reportage.
It is
noteworthy that John does not quote the Septuagint version (which said
“because they have mocked”) – instead, he reflects the Hebrew “pierced”.
This indicates John was either translating directly from Hebrew or using a
Greek version like Theodotion’s that corrected the LXX. In either case, John
affirms that Jesus’ piercing by the spear was a fulfillment of Zechariah’s
oracle. For John, the fact that a literal piercing occurred was key, and he
seems to intentionally echo the prophecy to highlight Jesus’ identity. The
phrasing “they shall look on him” in John likely has a double application: (a)
those present literally looked upon the crucified Jesus (the soldiers, the
onlookers “gazed upon” the one they pierced, perhaps in a mocking way – a
partial fulfillment), and (b) eschatologically, there will be a future looking
upon Jesus by the Jewish people or by the world in mourning and recognition.
John’s immediate context emphasizes the former, but he uses prophetic language
that points to the latter as well (especially since he says “another Scripture
says,” implying a broader significance beyond the immediate moment).
What is
crucial is that John has no qualms about applying a prophecy spoken by
Yahweh (“look unto Me”) to Jesus. He expects his readers to catch that
Zechariah’s “Me” is now being fulfilled in “him” – Jesus. The theological
inference is plain: Jesus is Yahweh incarnate. The Apostle Thomas had
earlier declared to the risen Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28),
which dovetails with this idea: the one who was pierced is “the Lord and God.”
John’s Gospel as a whole presents a high Christology (Jesus as the Word who was
God, John 1:1, and equal to the Father). In John 19:37, by citing
Zech 12:10, he reinforces that theology scripturally. As one commentary
observes, “John cites Zechariah 12:10… and here the passage is expressly
quoted: ‘They shall look on him whom they have pierced.’ …the Evangelist knew
the passage in this form, and indeed the reading ‘him’… appears in a few Hebrew
manuscripts. Why then is RSV criticized for conforming to the New Testament
here? Because, if the reading ‘me’ be retained, the reference would be to the
speaker, who is God, and … some see here an anticipation of the Christian
doctrine of our Lord’s divine nature.”. In other words, the only reason
to shy away from “me” is if one wishes to avoid the Christological implication
– but John himself did not avoid it. He simply quotes the text in a
grammatically fitting way. The New Testament thus provides apostolic
confirmation that Zechariah 12:10 is about Christ and that Christ is
identified with the LORD.
Revelation
1:7 – Every Eye Shall See Him: The Book of Revelation, also authored by John (according to early
tradition), gives another allusion: “Behold, He is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all tribes
of the earth will wail on account of Him” (Rev 1:7). This verse
pointedly combines Zechariah 12:10 with Daniel 7:13. “Coming with the
clouds” is from Daniel (about a divine messianic figure), and “every eye will
see him, and those who pierced him, and all tribes… will wail” clearly echoes
Zechariah’s imagery of looking and mourning. Here, John places Jesus as the
subject of both prophecies: the glorious cloud-coming One and the pierced
One. The phrase “all tribes of the earth” mourning is essentially what
Zech 12:10-14 describes (tribes of Israel mourning). Revelation
universalizes it to “all the earth” – showing a final worldwide reckoning with
Christ. Importantly, Revelation 1:7 retains the third person (“him…him”)
for the same reason as John 19:37 – it’s descriptive narrative. But the
allusion is unmistakable: Jesus = the Pierced One of Zechariah 12:10,
and also the “Lord God” who says in Zech 12:10, “I will pour out my Spirit…”
etc. In fact, the next verse in Revelation (1:8) has the Lord God Almighty
speaking. John’s seamless weaving of the identities strongly supports the
Trinitarian reading. There is no hint in Revelation that one being is pierced
and a different being is the Lord – rather, Jesus encompasses both roles in His
person. Revelation 1:7, by saying “those who pierced Him,” underscores that the
very individuals/nation who pierced Jesus will see Him again, fulfilling
the prophecy’s intent. This addresses one of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’
contextual arguments: they note Zechariah’s context is God delivering Israel
from nations, so they claim it’s about Israel’s enemies being pierced, etc. But
John in Revelation applies it to Jesus and to the eschatological repentance
of “all tribes”. In Christian understanding, at the Second Coming, the
surviving Jewish people (and indeed all peoples) will recognize Jesus whom
humanity pierced, leading to deep mourning and (for many) repentance. This is a
coherent scenario that perfectly matches Zech 12:10 when read as God
speaking about being pierced and people mourning Him.
The Communicatio
Idiomatum – Can God Be Pierced or Die?: One of the main theological objections raised
by Arians ancient and modern (like JWs) is: “How can God die? How can the
immortal God be said to be pierced or suffer?” They argue that if
Zech 12:10 says God was pierced, it must be a mistake or a figure of
speech, because God (in their view, the Father alone is God) cannot suffer
physical harm. The historic Christian doctrine of the Incarnation
provides the answer through the concept of communicatio idiomatum, the
“communication of properties.” This means that the attributes of both
Christ’s divine nature and human nature can be ascribed to the one person of
Christ and, in a qualified way, even spoken of God or of man
due to the unity of Christ’s person. For example, Acts 20:28 speaks of “the
church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.” Of course God, in
His eternal divine essence, is spirit and has no blood. But God the Son
became flesh, and in the unity of that person, the blood Jesus shed is
truly God’s own blood – the blood of God – because the person who bled
is divine. The early church readily used such language. Ignatius of Antioch,
for instance, spoke of “the blood of God” (Ign. Eph. 1) and “our
God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary”. This is not a confusion of
natures, but a confession that the person of Christ is God, therefore what He
experiences in the flesh can be attributed to God the Son. Likewise,
1 Cor 2:8 says the rulers “crucified the Lord of glory.”
“Lord of glory” is a divine title (referring to Yahweh, cf. Ps 24:8-10),
yet Scripture says this “Lord of glory” was crucified. Such statements are only
coherent if Jesus is one person with two natures – as Chalcedonian
orthodoxy states. The Jehovah’s Witness position (that Jesus is not
truly God but a created being) forces them to alter these kinds of verses
(indeed, they render 1 Cor 2:8 as “lord of glory” lower-case, to
avoid implying deity, and they famously mistranslate John 1:1). In Zechariah 12:10,
we have another instance: God speaks of being “pierced.” The only way
this is possible without violating God’s divine impassibility is if God takes
on a nature capable of suffering – i.e., through the Incarnation. Christian
theology holds that God the Father did not suffer or die on the cross
(which would be Patripassianism, a heresy rightly rejected), but God
the Son did suffer and die in His humanity. Yet because the Son is fully
God, we can say “God was pierced” in the sense that the Person who is God
underwent piercing. Tertullian explains this distinction by teaching that the
divine nature cannot be harmed, but in Christ the divine and human were united
without confusion. He and later writers used analogies like the sunbeam that
lights a mud puddle but is not defiled by it – Christ’s divinity remains
impassible even as His humanity suffers. Therefore, Zechariah 12:10 is
a prophetic instance of the communicatio idiomatum: it attributes an act of
violence (piercing) to Yahweh, which in actuality is suffered by Yahweh’s
incarnate aspect (the Son).
Notably, the
early Church had to tread carefully to avoid “Patripassianism.” The StudyLight
article quoted earlier observes, “Putting God on the cross was a problem for
Greek thinkers and the growing Trinitarian orthodoxy was unsettled by it. Those
that held variations on it during the third century… were known as
Patripassians… Ever since then, orthodox Christians have been afraid of
speaking of the suffering of God, although not to do so creates a bizarre image
of a Father who identifies Himself with Jesus… without letting Himself in on
His pain and suffering.”. This is a theological musing that while we must
distinguish the Father from the Son (so that we do not say the Father was
crucified), we also affirm that God is not utterly dispassionate or aloof – in
the Son, God experienced human suffering. In fact, the prophecy of
Zechariah 12:10 provides biblical warrant for saying “God suffered.”
It is Yahweh speaking – not an angel, not a creature – and He says “they
pierced Me.” The Church’s doctrinal framework allows us to say: Yes, in
the person of Jesus Christ, God was pierced. God the Son was pierced
in His flesh, and as such God knows suffering from the inside.
Thus,
instead of being an embarrassment, Zech 12:10 is a jewel of biblical
revelation that vindicates orthodox Christology: the passage only makes
sense if Christ is both divine and human. Jehovah’s Witnesses,
denying that, try to either retranslate the verse or allegorize it. The JW New
World Translation renders it as “they will look to the One whom they
pierced”, explicitly dropping “Me”. A former JW admits this is due to bias:
“The reason the New World Translation does not include the words ‘on me’ is
that this is an extremely biased translation… Because this is clearly a
prophecy of the Messiah, and because God, referring to Jesus, calls Himself
‘me’ in the passage, they do not like this! So they purposefully mistranslate
the passage.”. This polemical evaluation (by John Oakes) underscores
that the “me” is actually present in the Hebrew, and removing it in
translation is unwarranted. Even some Jewish translations that keep “on
Me” will try to soften it (e.g., “look unto Me, because they have pierced
him”). But interestingly, traditional Jewish commentators did not see
theological impossibility in God being metaphorically “wounded” by Israel’s
sins. For instance, Rashi at one point suggested that the “piercing” could be
understood metaphorically of God being hurt by Israel’s deeds (though Rashi
elsewhere accepted it as Messiah ben Joseph’s death). In any case, the
Christian explanation is that God was literally pierced in the person of Jesus,
and yet God did not cease to be God – it was a true death in the humanity of
Christ, followed by resurrection.
Related
New Testament Passages: The New Testament contains other verses that mirror the dynamic of
Zech 12:10 – affirming Christ’s divinity and His being pierced/killed.
We’ve mentioned Acts 20:28 (God’s own blood) and 1 Cor 2:8 (Lord
of glory crucified). Additionally:
- Luke 1:43. Elizabeth calls Mary “the
mother of my Lord.” In a Jewish context, “my Lord” (especially
coming from the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, Luke 1:41-43) implies a
recognition of the divine Messiah. Elizabeth, filled with the Spirit, uses
“Lord” (Κύριος) for the unborn Jesus, a title often used for Yahweh. This
indicates that even in His pre-birth state, Jesus is acknowledged
as Lord – supporting that Jesus is truly God. If Mary’s son is “my Lord,”
then when that son is later pierced, it is the Lord who is pierced
(Zech 12:10 uses Yahweh speaking, i.e., the Lord). So Luke 1:43
harmonizes conceptually with the idea that Mary bore God in the flesh
(Theotokos) and that God in Christ could experience death.
- Acts 3:15. Peter, preaching to the Jews,
says, “You killed the Author of Life, whom God raised from the dead”.
The title “Author (or Prince) of Life” (ὁ ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ζωῆς) is an exalted designation –
only God truly is the Source of life. Yet Peter says they killed
the Author of Life: God. Again, a stark juxtaposition of divinity and
mortality: the Life-giver died. This is explicable only by the
Incarnation: the Life-giver had taken on a form that could be killed. It’s
another way of saying “they pierced Me” – where “Me” is the Source of
life. Peter immediately adds that God the Father raised Him, preserving the
distinction (the Father raised the Son).
- Acts 20:28. Already discussed, but to
reiterate: “the church of God which He obtained with His own blood.”
Many manuscripts say “church of the Lord” or “church of the Lord and God,”
but the stronger textual evidence favors “church of God” with “His own
blood.” Even if one prefers “Lord” there, in Luke’s usage “the Lord” often
refers to Christ. So either way, the one whose blood bought the church is God/the
Lord. If God’s blood redeemed us, then God (in Christ) was
pierced and bled.
- 1 John 3:16. “By this we know love, that
He (Jesus) laid down His life for us…”. Yet just a verse
prior (3:15) John said God’s love abides in us. And in 4:9, “God sent His
only Son… that we might live through Him.” The Johannine literature often
has this interchange: God’s action is Christ’s action. When Christ laid
down His life – God’s love was manifested. It was God’s life given in
the Son. Similarly, Zech 12:10 says God will pour out grace, they
will look to God whom they pierced, and mourn as for an only son –
remarkably, in the Gospel we see God gave His only Son
(John 3:16), the only Son was pierced, and a spirit of grace and
supplication leads people to repent over the pierced Son as one mourns an
only son.
To bring it
back fully: the theological depth of Zechariah 12:10 is reached in the
Gospel. The verse predicts a future outpouring of the Spirit (“spirit of
grace and supplication”) resulting in repentance. Christians see Pentecost and
subsequent movements of the Spirit as beginning to fulfill this, and expect a
climax when Israel as a nation turns to Christ (as Paul foresees in
Romans 11:26). The condition for that repentance is recognizing whom
they pierced. When one realizes that the one crucified was none other than
God’s Son (and thus one with God), it produces the kind of mourning
Zechariah describes: intense, bitter grief as for a firstborn. This
repentance unto salvation is beautifully described as looking unto God
in Christ. Thus, the Trinitarian reading of Zech 12:10 not only
withstands objections, it unlocks the full coherence of the prophecy with the
New Covenant fulfillment.
6. Refutation
of Counter-Arguments
Having
built the positive case, let us directly tackle some of the specific arguments
raised by Jehovah’s Witnesses, ancient Arians, and some modern scholars:
- “The context in Zechariah makes
‘me’ impossible, because it says ‘they shall mourn for him’ – it must be
two different subjects (God and a separate pierced one).”
This argument is not
compelling. Prophetic scripture often shifts pronouns and perspectives. In
Zech 12:10, the shift is the message: it conveys a mystery of
a dual aspect. The same person is referenced in first person (“me”) and
third person (“him”). The people “look to Me” (God) and mourn for
“him” (whom they now realize was God’s Son). The immediate context
(Zech 12:7-9) speaks of God giving victory to Judah over enemies and
then in 12:10 we see an outpouring of repentance within Jerusalem –
presumably after a deliverance and the realization of past sin (perhaps
the sin of rejecting the Messiah). The only reading that fully
explains why the people mourn in this scenario is the one that
Christ fulfills: after a deliverance (which we can correlate to end-times
deliverance of Israel), they recognize with spiritual illumination that Jesus,
whom they pierced, is indeed their Savior and God, leading to a
massive national mourning of repentance. Jewish commentators who reject
Jesus struggle to identify why there is such great mourning in
Zech 12:10-14. Some suggest it’s mourning over fallen warriors or
righteous ones, but the text focuses on one figure (“him as an only son”).
The Talmudic and medieval Jewish interpretation that it is Messiah ben
Joseph’s death being mourned actually aligns with the idea it’s the
Messiah slain. They stop short of saying this Messiah is God – yet they
still have to explain “look unto Me.” By positing that Israel “looks to
God for an explanation/comfort about the death of Messiah,” they
inadvertently confirm the two perspectives in the text. The Trinitarian
reading says those two perspectives (divine and human) converge in Christ.
Thus contextually, “me” and “him” are not contradictory but complementary.
The “him” does not refer to a different person than the “me,” but to the
same person described in a different way. If one insists on a
non-Trinitarian approach, one must split the subjects and then the
prophecy loses its unique force – it becomes either “people will look to
God about someone they pierced” or “people will look to some human
whom they pierced and mourn for him.” The former is unnatural (look to
God because they killed someone? It’s convoluted), and the latter ignores
that the Hebrew explicitly has God speaking (“look to Me”). Our
interlocutors often gloss over that the speaker throughout Zech 12 is
God (see 12:1, “Thus says the LORD…”). There is no shift of speaker
indicated at verse 10. Therefore “they will look to Me” must be God’s own
continued speech. To then translate or interpret it as “look to him”
essentially inserts a new subject without warning, which is not how
prophetic oracles typically work. The contextual flow supports the
Masoretic pronouns as-is: Yahweh is speaking; Yahweh says “they pierced
Me”; Yahweh then speaks of mourning for “him.” The “him” can be explained,
but swapping “me” to “him” in the first clause violates the speaker
continuity. As the American Standard Version footnote acknowledges,
some MSS have “him,” but the main text kept “me,” and the logic is that
the second “him” doesn’t force changing the first “me”. It is better
understood as a literary device or implicit Christological distinction
than as a scribal mistake.
- “Jehovah’s Witnesses say their
translation ‘look to the one whom they pierced’ is justified and that
Trinitarians have no support for ‘me.’”
This is flatly contradicted by the
evidence. The Hebrew unquestionably has first person “me”. JW scholars in
their more candid moments acknowledge the Hebrew reads “unto me” but they
choose “the one” to avoid the implication that Jehovah could be pierced.
This is an example of theological bias driving translation. Numerous non-Trinitarian
translators (e.g., modern Jewish ones) still retain “Me” – for instance,
the 1917 JPS had “look unto Me whom they have pierced” (with a footnote
“him”) and the 1985 JPS chose an interpretation “unto Me, because they
have thrust him through,” but note that even they did not simply render it
“unto him” outright; they felt the need to include God (“unto Me”) in the
text. The reason is the Hebrew grammar and tradition demand “unto Me”
appear. The New World Translation (NWT) stands virtually alone in
entirely removing the reference to “Me” (it says “look to the one whom
they pierced”) – an act of deliberate omission. Even a critical
scholar like Ernst Haenchen (whom JWs quote) who thought “me” was
“impossible” had to admit the NT avoided the LXX because it “avoided the
impossible ‘me’ of the Hebrew text”. In other words, Haenchen conceded the
Hebrew text has “me” (he just personally didn’t accept its
possibility). The JW claim that our interpretation lacks support is
false; it is rather the JW translation that lacks support, being an
outlier intended to obscure a doctrine (much like their infamous rendering
“the Word was a god” in John 1:1). As one Christian apologist
remarked, “The New World ‘translators’ have chosen to change the
original meaning to suit their doctrine. You should dismiss this
translation completely as unjustified by the Hebrew text.”. The JWs
often try to cite early Christian writers (Ignatius, Irenaeus,
Tertullian) saying “him” to imply they didn’t view it as God speaking. We
have shown that is a misuse of patristic data: those Fathers do apply
it to Christ, who they worship as God. Thus, ironically, their usage
actually supports the Trinitarian understanding – they saw Christ as the
referent of Yahweh’s prophecy.
- “Maybe the verse is only
metaphorical – God wasn’t literally pierced, it means Israel hurt God by
their sins.”
While God indeed speaks in some passages of being hurt or “broken” by
Israel’s infidelity (e.g. Ezekiel 6:9), the specific language of
“piercing” (daqar) is never elsewhere used metaphorically for
emotional pain. In Hebrew, דקר (daqar) consistently means a physical
piercing or stabbing to death. It is used for literal spearing or
thrusting through (e.g. Judges 9:54, 1 Sam 31:4,
Zech 13:3). The Zech 12:10 prophecy is surrounded by war imagery
too (Zech 12:9 speaks of destroying enemies, Zech 13:3 uses
daqar for killing false prophets). So the natural sense is a literal
piercing. Calvin, uncomfortable with the idea of God being pierced,
suggested it meant God is as hurt as if wounded unto death by our sins.
But this is an outlier view among Christian interpreters. Keil and
Delitzsch criticize that, noting that dâqar does not mean ridicule
or metaphorical wound; it means pierce or slay. The evangelical scholar
David Baron (in The Visions and Prophecies of Zechariah) also
refuted the metaphorical view, insisting this speaks of a real piercing
and real mourning over a person. Contextually, the mourning is
likened to mourning for an only son or firstborn who has died – a
concrete, literal grief, not just remorse. Thus the metaphorical
interpretation fails to account for the vivid personal and corporeal
language. Only the death of Christ fully meets this: He was literally
pierced (John 19:34), and He is the “firstborn” (prototokos) and
beloved only Son over whom people would mourn.
- “The verse has nothing to do
with Jesus or the Trinity; it’s about some Jewish figure or events B.C.”
Some anti-missionary Jewish
scholars try to apply Zech 12:10 to historical figures like King
Josiah (slain in 609 BC) or the high priest Onias (murdered
~170 BC) or the Maccabean martyrs. But none of those events really
align with the prophecy’s details (did “the house of David and Jerusalem”
universally mourn either of those with such intensity and spiritual
renewal? Not really). Those interpretations are largely abandoned because
Zech 12-14 are clearly eschatological chapters. Even medieval Jewish
commentators like Ibn Ezra and Kimchi acknowledged a
messianic interpretation (they just wouldn’t say it was Jesus).
Ibn Ezra, for example, suggested the “pierced one” could be Messiah
ben Joseph or some prince, but he, along with others like Abravanel and
Moshe Alshekh, continued the traditional view that this is messianic.
Thus, ironically, Trinitarian Christians stand with the oldest Jewish
exegesis in seeing this verse as of great Messianic import. We just assert
that the Messiah in question has come, and He was both human (hence could
be pierced) and divine (hence Yahweh can say it was “Me”).
In light of
all the evidence, the arguments raised by JWs and similar groups do not hold
up. The linguistic claims about את (’et) and אשר (’asher) are answered by
recognizing Hebrew’s flexibility and the rhetorical style of prophecy. The textual
claims are weighed and found wanting against the vast testimony of the
Masoretic and ancient versions that uphold “me.” And the theological claims
that “God cannot be pierced” collapse once one accepts the incarnation of the
Son, which is well attested in Scripture. Far from being “ungrammatical” or
“impossible,” Zechariah 12:10 emerges as a remarkably precise prophecy: it
foretold that God Himself would come in a form where He could be pierced, that
people would literally pierce Him, and that afterward a spirit of grace would
lead to repentance for that act. This is exactly what Christianity preaches: God
so loved the world that He gave His only Son…, the Son came, was pierced
for our transgressions (cf. Isaiah 53:5, another piercing prophecy), and
by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit people are moved to repent and believe,
lamenting their sins and the role those sins played in the crucifixion of
Christ (see Acts 2:36-37, where Peter’s audience “was cut to the heart”
upon realizing they crucified the Lord).
7. The 1953 Watchtower Article
The Watchtower’s 1953 explanation concedes that the oldest Hebrew manuscripts read “me” but attempts to neutralise any Christological force by treating the first-person pronoun as a mere representative association: when Jesus was pierced, Jehovah was wounded only in that His agent was mistreated. That interpretation cannot withstand careful scrutiny of the linguistic, textual, historical and theological data.
First, the grammar of the Masoretic text is not an embarrassment to be emended; it is the heart of the oracle. Hebrew frequently places an accusative marker אֵת in front of a relative clause introduced by אֲשֶׁר, yielding a construction that can be translated “the one whom.” In Zechariah 12:10 the phrase אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר דָּקָרוּ therefore means, in the most straightforward sense, “to me—namely, the one whom they pierced.” The shift from first-person singular (“me”) to third-person singular (“him”) in the subsequent clause is a literary device well documented in prophetic style, known variously as enallage or perspectival re-centreing; it marks a transition from divine self-identification to the narrator’s description of Israel’s response. Far from creating an impossible construction, the alternation communicates that the subject who speaks as Yahweh is also contemplated as a distinct figure who has been slain. The Watchtower’s claim that the sequence is “unintelligible” is anachronistic: mediaeval Jewish scribes did indeed add a marginal קְרֵי reading “him,” precisely because the autographic reading “me” jarred with post-biblical theological assumptions about divine impassibility, but the principle lectio difficilior potior demands that the more challenging reading, attested by all ancient witnesses, be retained. Conjectural emendation cannot overrule the combined testimony of the Aleppo Codex, the Leningradensis, the Targum, the Babylonian Talmud (Sukkah 52a) and the pre-Christian translators Aquila and Theodotion, all of which presuppose “me.”
Secondly, the New Testament authors treat the passage as a direct prophecy of the crucifixion and parousia of Jesus. John 19:37 does shift to the third-person form and cites a clause equivalent to “they shall look on him,” but it would be tendentious to infer that John thereby rejected the first-person element. He is writing narrative prose, not reproducing the oracle verbatim; by embedding the citation in his own syntax he necessarily converts the pronouns to match narrative perspective. Crucially, he omits the Septuagint’s mistranslation κατωρχήσαντο (“mocked”) and restores ἐξεκέντησαν (“pierced”), proving that he consulted a Hebrew text essentially identical with the Masoretic consonantal sequence, including the verb דקר. John therefore endorses, rather than revises, the substance of the Hebrew text, and he unapologetically applies it to Jesus. The Apocalypse intensifies the identification: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him” (Rev 1:7), an unmistakable conflation of Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 12:10 in which the “pierced” one is equated with the Danielic “Son of Man” who shares the throne of God.
Thirdly, the Watchtower’s assertion that God “could not die, and then resurrect himself” rests on a category error. Classical Trinitarianism does not teach that the divine nature as such is passible; rather, it teaches that the second person of the Trinity, without ceasing to be what he eternally is, assumed a true human nature capable of suffering and death. The communicatio idiomatum, formalised at Chalcedon but implicit in apostolic teaching, justifies the attribution of experiences of the human nature to the single hypostasis who is God the Son. Thus Acts 20:28 can speak of “the church of God which he purchased with his own blood,” and 1 Corinthians 2:8 can declare that the “Lord of glory” was crucified. Zechariah 12:10 anticipates precisely this mystery: the one who speaks as Yahweh is the one who will be literally pierced in time. The representative theory advanced by the Watchtower is insufficient; biblical authors do not say that persecuting prophets is the same as piercing Yahweh. They say, rather, that persecuting Jesus is persecuting Yahweh because Jesus is Yahweh in the flesh. Samuel’s experience in 1 Samuel 8:7 is not a parallel: the people’s rejection of Samuel is tantamount to rejecting God’s rule; it is not described as a physical act inflicted on God’s body. Only if God possessed a body susceptible to piercing could Zechariah’s wording be literal, and the New Testament insists that he did so in the incarnation.
Fourthly, the Watchtower appeals to partial or “miniature” fulfilments at Pentecost and in the modern history of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but such applications evacuate the oracle of its concrete imagery. The Hebrew verb דקר means “to thrust through with a weapon,” never “to persecute an organisation.” The subsequent mourning is compared to the lament for Hadad-rimmon over King Josiah, which was occasioned by a national catastrophe centred on the death of a royal individual. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 does indeed convict Israel of having crucified the Messiah and elicits compunction, but Peter does not cite Zechariah 12:10; instead, Luke reserves that citation for the literal spear-thrust recorded in John 19:34–37. Likewise, there is no textual warrant in Zechariah for allegorising the piercing as administrative restrictions imposed on modern religious movements. The eschatological context of Zechariah 12–14 points to a climactic national repentance when “all the tribes of the land” will mourn over the one whom they had physically slain, a scenario that aligns seamlessly with Paul’s vision of Israel’s future salvation in Romans 11:26 and with Revelation 1:7.
Finally, historical theology corroborates the exegetical conclusion. Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem all cite Zechariah 12:10 as a Christological proof-text. Their citations sometimes adopt the Johannine third person, but their expositions leave no doubt that they recognised the speaker of the oracle as God and the pierced one as Christ. Had these Fathers believed that the text disallowed an identification of Christ with Yahweh, they would have exploited it against the modalist and docetic heresies they vigorously opposed. Instead, they pressed it into service as evidence that the crucified Jesus is “our God” (Ign. Eph. 7), the “Lord of glory” (Tert. Res. 20), and the divine bridegroom returning to judge the nations (Cyril, Cat. 13.28). The consistent voice of early catholic tradition therefore contradicts the Watchtower’s late-modern construal that Zechariah merely teaches a representative principle.
In sum, the Watchtower article fails to reckon with the philological solidity of the Masoretic “me,” the New Testament’s Christological application of the passage, and the historic Christian doctrine of the incarnation that alone renders the oracle coherent. Zechariah 12:10 does not merely allow a Trinitarian reading; it positively demands one, since only the union of divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ explains how Yahweh can announce, in the first person, that He will be pierced and yet remain the living fountain opened for sin and uncleanness in the very next verse (Zech 13:1). Far from undermining the Trinity, the verse offers one of the Old Testament’s clearest anticipations of the redemptive paradox at the heart of Christian faith: God is both the offended party and, in His Son, the atoning victim for the sins of the world.
8. Conclusion
“They
shall look upon Me whom they have pierced” is a stunning declaration in the Hebrew Bible
that finds its fulfillment and deepest meaning at the cross of Christ. Our
extensive analysis demonstrates that the Trinitarian reading of
Zechariah 12:10 is firmly grounded in the text, supported by the
earliest Jewish and Christian interpretations, and coherent within the
framework of Christian theology. We have shown that the Hebrew grammar,
while unusual, does support “Me” as the object of “pierced.” The phrase אֵת אֲשֶׁר דָּקָרוּ is rightly translated “whom they
pierced,” referring back to the first person “Me” (Yahweh). Attempts to dodge
this by re-pointing the text or re-translating it as “him” lack credible
foundation and often betray a dogmatic agenda (as seen in the New World
Translation’s handling of the verse).
Through
examining the ancient versions and manuscripts, we found
overwhelming evidence that the original text said “unto Me” – a reading
preserved even when scribes/translators struggled to understand it. The
Septuagint’s divergence taught us that, even when the translators missed the
literal “piercing,” they kept “Me,” inadvertently confirming the harder
reading. The later Greek translators (Aquila/Theodotion) and the Aramaic Targum
reaffirmed the essential elements: God speaking, a piercing, a resulting
mourning. The patristic witnesses unanimously applied this prophecy to
Jesus Christ, thereby equating the “Me” in Zechariah with Christ, who is God
made flesh. Far from ignoring “Me,” the early church reverently saw Jesus as
that very “Me,” the LORD, now pierced for our sake.
Addressing
the Jehovah’s Witness and Arian objections head-on, we demonstrated that
their linguistic quibbles are not insurmountable, and their theological
resistance stems from a refusal to accept the full truth of Christ’s nature.
The Trinity and the Incarnation provide the only satisfying resolution to Zech 12:10’s
paradox: God is pierced, yet God remains enthroned – because the Son, one in
essence with the Father, was pierced in His humanity and now is risen and
glorified. The communicatio idiomatum means we can say with Scripture,
“God purchased the church with His own blood”, and “they crucified the Lord of
glory,” without ceasing to maintain that God in His divine nature is immortal
and impassible. It was precisely this union of the mortal and immortal in
Christ’s person that allowed our salvation to be accomplished. Zechariah’s
prophecy, written hundreds of years before Christ, anticipated this profound
mystery in a single verse.
In
theological perspective, Zechariah 12:10 affirms both the justice and
mercy of God. Justice, in that Israel (and by extension all sinners) will
finally face the reality of what was done to God’s Messiah – provoking genuine
contrition. Mercy, in that God “pours out a spirit of grace and
supplication” to enable this repentance, and the very act that they mourn
(the piercing of Christ) is the act that atones for their sins. Thus, “they
shall mourn for Him as one mourns for an only son” reflects the Gospel: the
Father gave His only Son, and those who pierced Him (all of us, for our sins
put Him on the cross) must come weeping in repentance to receive the grace
poured out. This interpretation is not only linguistically and contextually
sound; it is spiritually compelling. It exalts Christ – the pierced One
is none other than God – and it humbles the sinner – we realize our hands
pierced our Creator. No Arian interpretation can offer such a weighty and
cohesive picture; they either split the referent (robbing the verse of its
force) or downplay the piercing as merely symbolic (robbing it of literal
fulfillment).
As
Christian scholars and believers, we therefore stand by the “difficult”
reading, knowing that within that difficulty lies the pearl of great price: a
testimony to the unity of God and the Lamb. John’s Gospel and Apocalypse
confirm our stance, as does the collective voice of scripture that the Messiah
is Immanuel, “God with us,” capable of suffering and conquering. When
Jehovah’s Witnesses assert that Jehovah and Jesus are separate in such a way
that Jehovah could never be touched by the cross, they unwittingly deny the
very comfort Zechariah offers – that God so identified with His people that He
took their wounds as His own. The communicatio idiomatum ensures that
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ objection – “Jehovah cannot die” – is answered by the
Bible’s own declaration: “the Author of Life you killed, but God raised
Him” (Acts 3:15). In Jesus, Jehovah did taste death, but triumphed
over it.
Finally, we
recall the patristic exhortation that this prophecy also has an eschatological
dimension: one day, “every eye shall see Him, even those who pierced Him”
(Rev 1:7), and for some it will be a mourning leading to salvation (as
Zechariah depicts for the house of David and Jerusalem) and for others a
mourning of despair. The polemical force of Zechariah 12:10 for us,
then, is twofold: it is an apologetic vindication of Christ’s divinity against
those who would diminish Him, and it is a clarion call to repentance for all of
us who by our sins have “pierced” Him. We must “look upon” the Crucified One –
not with hostility or indifference, but with faith and godly sorrow. As
Tertullian challenged the heretics of his day, we challenge our opponents now: face
the Scripture as it stands – Jehovah says He was pierced. Either
this is a fatal contradiction for your theology, or you must bow to the truth
that “in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself”
(2 Cor 5:19), even to the point of being pierced.
In the
words of early church writers reflecting on this verse: “Understand, O
Israel, and realize that this was the very Lord whom you crucified” – and
in understanding, may many be moved by the “spirit of grace” to mourning and to
saving faith. Zechariah 12:10, rightly understood, glorifies the Triune
God: the Father who sends the Spirit of grace, the Spirit who leads us to
look upon the Son, and the Son who, being one with the Father, could say “They
pierced Me” and by that piercing bring healing. Therefore, we unabashedly
defend the reading “look upon Me whom they have pierced,” proclaiming
that Jesus Christ is Jehovah – the Pierced God and the risen Lord of glory,
to whom be honor and worship forever. Amen.
Sources:
- Hebrew Bible (Masoretic Text),
Zechariah 12:10.
- Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary
on the Old Testament: Zechariah – on Zech 12:10 (trans. from
German).
- Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, sec. 138 (on independent
relative clauses).
- Bruce, F. F. History of
the Bible in English, p. 199-200 (on RSV’s rendering of
Zech 12:10 and NT citation).
- Oakes, John. “In
Zechariah 12:10, is the translation ‘look to Me’ justified…?” – Evidence
for Christianity (Q&A).
- Watchtower (“Questions from Readers,”
1953) – JW explanation of Zech 12:10 (acknowledging variant and
context).
- Targum Jonathan on Zech 12:10 (Aramaic
paraphrase) as cited in Y. Y. Rubinstein, The Commentary of
R. David Kimhi on Zechariah (on the Messiah ben Ephraim
interpretation).
- Babylonian Talmud,
Sukkah 52a
(on Zech 12:10 as referring to Messiah ben Joseph).
- Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle
to the Trallians, ch. 10 (citing Zech 12:10).
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies
IV.33.11 (citing Zech 12:10 as Christ’s second advent).
- Tertullian, On the
Resurrection 25 and 51 (quoting/using Zech 12:10).
- Theodoret of Cyrus, Eranistes,
Dial. III (Using Zech 12:10 to discuss two natures of
Christ).
- StudyLight.org, “Difficult
Sayings: God is Pierced – Zech 12:10, John 19:37” (explores
translations, Jewish views, patripassianism).
- New Testament: John 19:37;
Revelation 1:7; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 2:8; Luke 1:43;
Acts 3:15; etc.
- Keil, C. F. &
Delitzsch, F., Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
Vol. 10 (Zechariah) – remarks on daqar.
- Baron, David. The Visions
and Prophecies of Zechariah (1918) – chapter on Zech 12:10
(defending “me” and messianic interpretation).
- Early Church Scripture Index (CatholicCrossReference) –
entries for Zech 12:10 in patristic writings.
- etc. (Additional scholarly
articles on Zech 12:10 and NT use).
