Hebrew Scholars, I Need Your Help...

[woobadooba]

"And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." (Zec 13:6 KJV)

According to the original language, is this verse speaking of the Messiah.

The idea that there are wounds in the hands seems to suggest this.

Yet, when we look at the NRSV it indicates that one person isn't being addressed, but several, and that the wounds are not in the hands, but on the chest:

"And if anyone asks them, "What are these wounds on your chest?" the answer will be "The wounds I received in the house of my friends." (Zec 13:6 NRSV)

Please go into detail when answering.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

"And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." (Zec 13:6 KJV)

Correct Woob, the hebrew word [

] "Bein" is translated as "in", that is improper namely because the word [Bein] translated from the Hebrew is between his hands rather then in his hands... Though i'm trying to avoid nit-picking... I don't see much of a difference they can both be correct if you ask me... Zechariah 13:6 תיב יתיכה רשא רמאו ךידי ןיב הלאהתוכמה המ וילא רמאו
יבהאמve.a.mare.lavmaha.ma.kotha.e.lebeinya.dei.khave.a.mar a.sherhu.kei.tibeitme.a.ha.vai:

And one shall say unto him: 'What are these wounds between thy hands?' Then he shall answer: 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'

According to the original language, is this verse speaking of the Messiah.

Most definently no doubt, even orthodox Jews agree that this is a referance to the Messianic era not that they believe this applies to the messiah though..

The idea that there are wounds in the hands seems to suggest this.

The hebrew says they are between his hands correct..

Yet, when we look at the NRSV it indicates that one person isn't being addressed, but several, and that the wounds are not in the hands, but on the chest:

"And if anyone asks them, "What are these wounds on your chest?" the answer will be "The wounds I received in the house of my friends." (Zec 13:6 NRSV)

Please go into detail when answering.

Wow, that translation is way off, that is not what the hebrew says. Wow there is not much i can say about that Woob other then that translation is inaccurate...

 

[woobadooba]

Correct Woob, the hebrew word [

] "Bein" is translated as "in", that is improper namely because the word [Bein] translated from the Hebrew is between his hands rather then in his hands... Though i'm trying to avoid nit-picking... I don't see much of a difference they can both be correct if you ask me... Zechariah 13:6

Actually, there is a significant difference...

You see, "in the hands" suggests that there are wounds on the palms of the hands, but "between the hands" is an old idiomatic expression which denotes the idea of a beating taking place on either the chest or the back, since both of these are between the hands, or arms so to speak.

Moreover, a close reading of verses 4-6 shows us that the person who is being questioned in verse 6 is one of the false prophets spoken of in verse 4, not the Messiah.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

"And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." (Zec 13:6 KJV)

According to the original language, is this verse speaking of the Messiah.

The idea that there are wounds in the hands seems to suggest this.

Yet, when we look at the NRSV it indicates that one person isn't being addressed, but several, and that the wounds are not in the hands, but on the chest:

"And if anyone asks them, "What are these wounds on your chest?" the answer will be "The wounds I received in the house of my friends." (Zec 13:6 NRSV)

Please go into detail when answering.

There are several strong reasons why Zechariah 13:6 does not have the Messiah in view. The first is the context, and the second is the absence of any NT text which points to it as such a fulfillment.

Here is the context of Zechariah 13:1-6
1 On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity. 2 "On that day, I will banish the names of the idols from the land, and they will be remembered no more," declares the LORD Almighty. "I will remove both the prophets and the spirit of impurity from the land.

The "on that day" refers to the Day of the Lord. The LORD will target false prophets to be removed from the land.

3 And if anyone still prophesies, his father and mother, to whom he was born, will say to him, 'You must die, because you have told lies in the LORD's name.' When he prophesies, his own parents will stab him.

Being a false prophet - telling lies in the LORD's name - means death on the Day of the Lord. People are out to get rid of the false prophets...

4 "On that day every prophet will be ashamed of his prophetic vision. He will not put on a prophet's garment of hair in order to deceive. 5 He will say, 'I am not a prophet. I am a farmer; the land has been my livelihood since my youth.' 6 If someone asks him, 'What are these wounds...

On the Day of the Lord, false prophets "will be ashamed" of their false visions because the real truth will be revealed. So the false prophet in question doesn't dress like a prophet in order to deceive. He wants to save his own skin. Verses 5-6 shows the false prophet's deception: claiming to be a farmer from youth and denying the cuts "between the hands."

"Between the hands" is quite likely its an idiomatic expression to refer to the body or chest, as most versions render it. False prophets in the OT often cut thier own body for a variety of reasons - see Lev 19:28; Deut 14:1; 1 Kings 18:28; Jer 16:6; Jer 41:5. So the obvious marks of cutting are being denied by the false prophet as "wounds received in the house of friends" - they are claiming it was an accident.

Why would the false prophet want to deceive others that he was not a false prophet? To avoid being killed by the people for being a false prophet (verse 3).

LDG

 

[FiveWise]

Actually, there is a significant difference...

You see, "in the hands" suggests that there are wounds on the palms of the hands, but "between the hands" is an old idiomatic expression which denotes the idea of a beating taking place on either the chest or the back, since both of these are between the hands, or arms so to speak.

Moreover, a close reading of verses 4-6 shows us that the person who is being questioned in verse 6 is one of the false prophets spoken of in verse 4, not the Messiah.

I think I agree with YeshuamySalvation. In the hands or between the hands is not that great of a difference. Most scholars believe Jesus was not pierced in the palm, this would have broken bones. And, we know from the Gospel repeating prophecy and OT scripture that none of his bones were broken. It would be more correct that he was pierced in the upper wrist, it would be easier to avoid completely breaking bones.

 

[woobadooba]

I think I agree with YeshuamySalvation. In the hands or between the hands is not that great of a difference. Most scholars believe Jesus was not pierced in the palm, this would have broken bones. And, we know from the Gospel repeating prophecy and OT scripture that none of his bones were broken. It would be more correct that he was pierced in the upper wrist, it would be easier to avoid completely breaking bones.

But it seems you missed my point. "between the hands" was an old idiomatic expression which was a reference to a beating that took place either on the chest or the back. So there is a significant difference between "in the hands" and "between the hands".

Furthermore, it is evident that verse 6 is not referring to Jesus, but to false prophets.

For, verses 1-6 are a complete thought (pericope) which refers to the fate of false prophets and unclean spirits. And verse 7 starts a new thought which speaks of what will happen to the Messiah before these false prophets and unclean spirits are cut off from the land--He will be smitten.

Granted, verses 1-2 speak of the cleansing work of the Messiah. But notice how verse 2 speaks of the false prophets and unclean spirits that are to be cut off from the land. This is obviously speaking of the great day of God's judgement, not the crucifiction of Christ. After all, there are still false prophets and unclean spirits in the land. Meaning, this prophecy has not yet reached its fulfillment.

Furthermore, to isolate verses 1-5 from verse 6 is exegetically unwarranted, since it is highly evident that verses 4-6 are interconnected in thought.

See: "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive: But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth. And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."(Zec 13:4-6 KJV)

I underlined the key words which show this link to verse 6, and identify the person who is being questioned in verse 6 as one of the false prophets spoken of in verse 4. In other words, "prophets", "he", and "him", all designate the same identity.

It can't be any clearer that verse 6 is not referring to the same person spoken of in verse 7. To suggest otherwise is to read meaning into this passage that isn't there.

I also did a search online and found this: "wounds in thine hands" is a mistranslation. The Hebrew word for "wounds" is "makkah:"Strong's (#H4347) and is more accurately translated "to be smitten or stricken," i.e. "beaten." The word for hands is "yad:" (#H3027) and can also mean "between the hands, i.e. "the breast or back." So another way to understand this verse is, "Why have you been beaten on your back?"

Also, notice how we see the prophet's loved ones thrusting him through, or beating him for falsely prophesying:

"And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth. (Zec 13:3 KJV)

And here we see someone questioning the false prophet about his wounds, obviously from the beating that he got from his loved ones--within the "house of his friends".

And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. (Zec 13:6 KJV)

It is evident that these verses are referring to the same person--the false prophet. Therefore, it is not exegetically warranted to designate verse 6 to refer to the Messiah.

As a side note, the irony here is that we see that verse 7 speaks of a smitten Shepherd (The Messiah suffering the blows of the false prophets and unclean spirits). And verses 4-6 speak of smitten prophets and unclean spirits (the Messiah avenging the land and His people by striking down the false prophets and unclean spirits). Hence, the false prophets and unclean spirits are smitten by their own evil, so to speak.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

But it seems you missed my point. "between the hands" was an old idiomatic expression which was a reference to a beating that took place either on the chest or the back. So there is a significant difference between "in the hands" and "between the hands".

The Hebrew text says literally "between the hands." I'm not aware of any textual variants on this, either.


LDG

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

But it seems you missed my point. "between the hands" was an old idiomatic expression which was a reference to a beating that took place either on the chest or the back. So there is a significant difference between "in the hands" and "between the hands".

Furthermore, it is evident that verse 6 is not referring to Jesus, but to false prophets.

By context you are 100% correct, verse 6 is in referance to a false prophet.. Traditionally it's been taught that this is a referance to Yeshua. You certainly made me look deep into this passage, must admite that i took it out of context.. The expression between his hands as you mentoned is a hebraich idiom which means a beating either in the back or chest... You got me to research this, i have to say i can't thank you enough for pointing this out.. Reading the context of these quoations is shocking when one comes from an NT midrash-like application, so common in Matthew. You are so right Woob: there's no doubt that, contextually, Zec 13:6 is indeed speaking about a false prophet. If Compared with the bad, useless shepherd of Zec 11:15-17.

Thanks a million Woob..

 

[woobadooba]

By context you are 100% correct, verse 6 is in referance to a false prophet.. Traditionally it's been taught that this is a referance to Yeshua. You certainly made me look deep into this passage, must admite that i took it out of context.. The expression between his hands as you mentoned is a hebraich idiom which means a beating either in the back or chest... You got me to research this, i have to say i can't thank you enough for pointing this out.. Reading the context of these quoations is shocking when one comes from an NT midrash-like application, so common in Matthew. You are so right Woob: there's no doubt that, contextually, Zec 13:6 is indeed speaking about a false prophet. If Compared with the bad, useless shepherd of Zec 11:15-17.

Thanks a million Woob..

And thank you for being open-minded enough to see this.

I have debated with others over this verse and they absolutely refuse to see the truth in it.