Theological interpretation and Biblical criticism: Zech 4.1-14

Zechariah 4:1-14 presents an interesting textual conundrum.  Read the following:

And the angel who talked with me came again and woke me, like a man who is awakened out of his sleep. ² And he said to me, “What do you see?” I said, “I see, and behold, a lampstand all of gold, with a bowl on the top of it, and seven lamps on it, with seven lips on each of the lamps that are on the top of it. ³ And there are two olive trees by it, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left.” ⁴ And I said to the angel who talked with me, “What are these, my lord?” ⁵ Then the angel who talked with me answered and said to me, “Do you not know what these are?” I said, “No, my lord.” ⁶ Then he said to me, “These seven are the eyes of the LORD, which range through the whole earth.” ¹¹ Then I said to him, “What are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand?” ¹² And a second time I answered and said to him, “What are these two branches of the olive trees, which are beside the two golden pipes from which the golden oil is poured out?” ¹³ He said to me, “Do you not know what these are?” I said, “No, my lord.” ¹⁴ Then he said, “These are the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” (ESV Translation)

Not very tricky, right?  Apart from having to rephrase the question in v.12, this is a pretty logical section of text.  Did anyone notice, however, what I did here?  I performed a slight of hand by removing vv. 6b-10a.  The canonical passage reads as follows:

And the angel who talked with me came again and woke me, like a man who is awakened out of his sleep. ² And he said to me, “What do you see?” I said, “I see, and behold, a lampstand all of gold, with a bowl on the top of it, and seven lamps on it, with seven lips on each of the lamps that are on the top of it. ³ And there are two olive trees by it, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left.” ⁴ And I said to the angel who talked with me, “What are these, my lord?” ⁵ Then the angel who talked with me answered and said to me, “Do you not know what these are?” I said, “No, my lord.” ⁶ Then he said to me, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts. ⁷ Who are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain. And he shall bring forward the top stone amid shouts of ‘Grace, grace to it!'” ⁸ Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ⁹ “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. ¹⁰ For whoever has despised the day of small things shall rejoice, and shall see the plumb line in the hand of Zerubbabel. “These seven are the eyes of the LORD, which range through the whole earth.” ¹¹ Then I said to him, “What are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand?” ¹² And a second time I answered and said to him, “What are these two branches of the olive trees, which are beside the two golden pipes from which the golden oil is poured out?” ¹³ He said to me, “Do you not know what these are?” I said, “No, my lord.” ¹⁴ Then he said, “These are the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.”

What just happened here?  What is added?  How does this parenthetical interruption change the direction of this text?  Some interpreters simply write this off as a redactional insertion: “Who cares what this passage means, we’ve just uncovered the subversive actions of the tradents responsible for the final form of Zechariah!”  And yet even if this is a redactional insertion (very possible, in my estimation), are we really to believe that the redactors were too stupid to realize that they had just mucked up a perfectly logical text?  Someone was sure to notice this eventually!  No, the question needs to be asked: how does this interruption affect the meaning of Zech 4.1-14?

Brevard Childs, commenting on the interpolation here and in Zech 2, writes the following:

Through the outpouring of the divine spirit (Isa. 11.2) the mountains are transformed into a plain (Isa. 40.3f.) and the foundation of the earthly temple built by Zerubbabel adumbrates the heavenly temple of the new age (Ezek. 40ff.).  In sum, both oracles now serve further to support the new eschatological role which the framework has assigned to the visions. (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, pg. 478.)

Suddenly a text recounting Zechariah’s vision of the lampstand is transformed not only into social and political support for Zerubbabel, but into an eschatological vision for the future.  The temple rebuilding project being delayed by the returnees is being interpreted by the final form of Zechariah, not simply as a return to pre-exilic Judah – life as normal – but as an entry into eschatological fulfillment.  This interpolation and others like it help drive towards the surreal scene in Zech 14 where the Mount of Olives is split in half and Jerusalem is raised over all the surrounding country leaving the rest of Judea as a plain before it.

In the end, I’m not sure I would have even slowed down to look at this had critical methods not forced me to pay attention to phenomena like this.  Had I not, I would have been in the best of company; John Calvin doesn’t even acknowledge this oddity in his lectures on Zechariah.  Yet what are the possibilities here for theological exegesis?  It seems that a critical read of the text has opened up an interpretive horizon that is indeed profound!

______________
Andrew