Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze 38 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  aqwsed12345

  The usual shift of the topic to the authority contest and no-answer by “Dr.” Argumentum ad Verecudiam. That's precisely why I say that you are theologically zero, there is never a substantive answer on behalf of you, just debate over what and why some liberal Catholic-basher Prof. Dr. PhD -berg/-stein/-witz said and meant (I don’t give a damn), instead of adressing the issue on it merits.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  You claimed Alter translated the phrase as “the one”. He simply doesn’t. It’s wrong. And when I pointed out your mistake, you changed the subject.

  You claimed that the NWT didn’t translate the phrase as “to me” because of bias. But there are tons of versions that do the same as the NWT, many of them listed in careful’s post above.

  You’re a Catholic are you not? Practically every modern Catholic version I can find agrees with the NWT on this point: The New American Bible, The Jerusalem Bible, The New Jerusalem Bible, The Revised New Jerusalem Bible, The Christian Community Bible, The New Christian Community Bible, The Revised Standard Version, The New Revised Standard Version. All versions that are approved by the Catholic Church and they all agree with the NWT on this verse. In fact are there any recent Catholic versions that don’t agree with the NWT?

  So what on earth are you talking about?
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Nope, that is not the issue here, but whether the NWT intentionally deviates from the established Hebrew text (’elai et asher-daqaru) in the verse in question. It is a simple question: yes or no? Well?

  And in this regard, what Robert Alter, or all the Bible translations you listed, say. It is completely irrelevant. Prove that the given Hebrew text does not have a first-person singular subject. If it does, then it does not change if the Pope himself does not have it in his personal translation, then my answer is that the Pope was wrong about this. It is as simple as that.

  So what's your answer: Does ’elai et asher-daqaru contain first personal singular object ("me")? Yes or no? If not, justify why not, feel free to use a dictionary, AI, whatever, but focus on this, and how X and Y translated it is not an argument at all.

  That is how you should debate, but instead you start this usual authority contest, and bashing the marginal parts of my answer, and the usual "but it is AI!". If AI, if not AI, if its content is true, then it is true, if not, then refute it on the merits. Nothing else matters.

  But I'm not surprised that JWs and their apologists can't substantively defend critical parts of the NWT linguistically, instead resorting to this kind of "but he farted too" argument. The critical details of the NWT are tried to be justified by little-known, erroneous translations by private individuals, well-known “bugs” in well-known translations, selective citations of professionally accepted Greek language books, a misleading series of “examples” that prove nothing, and the works of liberal Catholic and Protestant authors who do not consider the Bible to be the reliable word of God.
• 

  slimboyfat

  The fact that Catholic versions agree with the NWT on the translation of Zechariah 12:10 is entirely relevant to your false claim that the NWT has purposely not translated the verse correctly.

  To any reasonable person the fact that Catholic versions agree with the NWT on the translation Zechariah 12:10 is compelling evidence that it is a legitimate translation.

  According to you the LXX translators, the author of the gospel of John, and modern Catholic versions that render the verse similar to the NWT are all wrong and you alone are right.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  No, it is not relevant at all, that other translations also render this like that, because if the Hebrew phrase ’elai et asher-daqaru indeed contains a first-person singular object, then this fact would not change even if all the Bible translations in the world had translated it incorrectly in this regard.

  So if a solution is controversial in a Bible translation, you shouldn't run to other translations, but look at the grammatical meaning of the established text in the original language. But you're not capable of doing that. Translation is not based on "precedents," there is no principle that says "if someone else translated it this way, it must be legitimate." It's just a "but he farted too" kind of argument. The meaning of the text is not determined by other translations.

  The LXX is just an uninspired translation, the NT quote is a free adaptation (neither a verbatim quote, nor an inspired determination of the meaning of the Hebrew OT text), the text of Zechariah is in Hebrew, so what does 'elai et asher-daqaru mean? Can you give a straightforward answer for this question? Yes or no?

  So if a certain solution is controversial in a Bible translation, it’s misguided to simply point to other translations as justification. Instead, the discussion should center around the grammatical and contextual meaning of the established text in the original language. Appealing to what other translators have done isn’t a real argument; it’s just deflecting the responsibility to evaluate the actual source material. Translation doesn’t work on the basis of precedent—there’s no rule that says if someone else translated it a certain way, that automatically makes it legitimate. Relying on that kind of defense is like saying, “Well, he did it too,” which is hardly a convincing or scholarly approach. Ultimately, the meaning of the text must be determined by direct engagement with the original, not by tallying up how others have rendered it.
• 

  slimboyfat

  It's just a "but he farted too" kind of argument.

  Most of your posts come across as pretentious farts to be honest.

  there’s no rule that says if someone else translated it a certain way, that automatically makes it legitimate.

  Not just someone else, but all modern Catholic versions translate it similarly to the NWT. (Plenty of non-Catholic versions too, of course) Are you claiming that all modern Catholic versions somehow agree with the NWT in offering a translation of Zechariah 12:10 that is not legitimate?

  You talk as if all the scholars that translate similar to the NWT are somehow ignorant of the reasons you give for your rendering, but their comments and explanations demonstrate that they are fully aware of the type of arguments you make, they just disagree with them. They find the contextual considerations, variants, LXX reading, John’s quotation, plausible emendation compelling reasons for the renderings they give.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  The heart of the matter is the underlying Hebrew text, not the head-count of English versions that chose to smooth its abrupt first-person turn. Every complete Masoretic manuscript—including the pre-Christian fragments from Naḥal Ḥever—reads אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָרוּ, “to me whom they pierced.” The two-consonant pronominal ending י cannot be anything but a first-person object; the direct-object marker אֵת immediately follows, so the grammar is airtight. Against that reading stand only a later marginal qere and the Septuagint’s paraphrase, both explainable as scribal or translational attempts to relieve the shock of Yahweh speaking of Himself as the pierced one. Text-critically, therefore, “me” is the lectio difficilior and, by standard canons, the preferred reading.

  Why, then, do a number of modern Catholic and Protestant Bibles adopt “him/the one”? Their editors state their reasons openly: they judge the LXX influence, the shift to third person in the following clause, or a conjectural emendation more congenial to English style or to their preferred critical text. They do not deny that the Masoretic consonants say “me”; they simply weigh other factors more heavily, confident that nothing in the verse threatens the deity of Christ that their churches already profess elsewhere. In other words, their choice is stylistic or text-critical, not confessional. JWs face a different situation. Their theology cannot allow any line in which Yahweh speaks as the One pierced, because their system excludes the possibility that the crucified Jesus is true God, and not Michael. Where other translators acknowledge a jagged Hebrew construction and decide—rightly or wrongly—that the LXX’s smoother reading may represent an earlier Vorlage, the NWT must reject “me” on dogmatic grounds; if it admitted the Masoretic reading here, it would undercut its own anti-Trinitarian platform. Therefore, the real issue here is that what is at most a bug in the other translations cited as "precedents," is a conscious and intentional feature in the NWT.

  Catholic versions, therefore, are not “agreeing with the NWT” in any theological sense; they simply do not see this verse as the lynch-pin of Christology, since the Church’s belief in the consubstantial Son rests on the whole biblical witness and the consistent rule of faith. By contrast, the Watchtower’s denial of Christ’s deity obliges it to neutralize every text that even hints at theophanic suffering. That is why its translators alter John 1:1, truncate Acts 20:28, and relocate “worship” offered to the Lamb. In each case the adjustment moves in a single, predictable direction—away from anything that might identify Jesus with Yahweh. Zechariah 12:10 is simply another casualty.

  John’s own use of the prophecy exposes the difference. When he refers to Zechariah, he writes, “They will look upon Him whom they pierced,” yet he applies that line without hesitation to the crucified Jesus while calling Him “the Lord of glory” and affirming that the Son shares "the Name above every name." Besides that, it is a well-known fact, that the NT authors quoted and adopted texts freely, not verbatim, from the OT, so how they quoted it is less relevant to establishing the correct meaning of the Hebrew text. Furthermore, the apostle can shift the pronoun in Greek because, in his mind, the pierced One and Yahweh are inseparable; the communicatio idiomatum lets him speak of the sufferings of the man Christ Jesus as the self-giving act of God. It is precisely that seamless identification that Arianism cannot tolerate and the NWT must obscure. (Of course, if someone doesn't understand the communicatio idiomatum, the question is how they can explain biblical passages like Luke 1:43, Acts 3:15, Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 2:8.)

  Here’s a non-exhaustive list of translations that preserve the traditional Christian reading—rendering Zechariah 12:10 as “me whom they have pierced,” directly supporting the dramatic force of the Hebrew and the identification of the pierced one with the LORD Himself:

  • New International Version (NIV): “…They will look on me, the one they have pierced…”
  • New Living Translation (NLT): “…They will look on me whom they have pierced…”
  • English Standard Version (ESV): “…when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced…”
  • Berean Standard Bible: “…they will look on Me, the One they have pierced…”
  • King James Version (KJV): “…they shall look upon me whom they have pierced…”
  • New King James Version (NKJV): “…then they will look on Me whom they pierced…”
  • New American Standard Bible (NASB): “…they will look at Me whom they pierced…”
  • NASB 1995/1977: Same as above.
  • Legacy Standard Bible: “…they will look on Me whom they have pierced…”
  • Amplified Bible: “…they will look at Me whom they have pierced…”
  • Christian Standard Bible (CSB): “…they will look at me whom they pierced…”
  • Holman Christian Standard Bible: Same as above.
  • American Standard Version (ASV): “…they shall look unto me whom they have pierced…”
  • English Revised Version: Same as above.
  • World English Bible: “…they will look to me whom they have pierced…”
  • Majority Standard Bible: “…they will look on Me, the One they have pierced…”
  • Literal Standard Version: “…they have looked to Me whom they pierced…”
  • Young’s Literal Translation: “…they have looked unto Me whom they pierced…”
  • Smith’s Literal Translation: “…they looked to me whom they pierced…”
  • Douay-Rheims Bible (Catholic): “…they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced…”
  • Catholic Public Domain Version: “…they will look upon me, whom they have pierced…”
  • Lamsa Bible (from Aramaic): “…they shall look upon me whom they have pierced…”
  • Peshitta Holy Bible Translated: “…they shall gaze upon me, The One whom they pierced through…”
  • NET Bible: “…they will look to me, the one they have pierced…”

  And that’s not even counting the various older English Bibles, such as the Geneva Bible, Bishops’ Bible, and Coverdale Bible, which all agree.

  So, according to your logic, are ALL these major translation committees, ecumenical scholars, Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox experts, as well as the overwhelming manuscript evidence, simply wrong? Are they all hopelessly confused—are the NIV, ESV, KJV, Douay-Rheims, and even your beloved Peshitta all just “pretentious farts” too?

  Let me get this straight: when a translation (or a thousand of them) preserves the unambiguous first-person “me,” the problem isn’t with your theology—it’s with all of them? Are you seriously going to claim that everyone from Reformed Protestants to conservative Catholics to the Peshitta translators got it wrong for 2,000 years, but the Watchtower and a few modern “correctors” are the only ones finally to see the light?

  Do you realize how laughable that is? If translation is a democracy, you’ve just lost by a landslide. Or does your “reasonableness” only kick in when a translation suits your sectarian dogma?

  So the issue is not how many translators have chosen to follow the LXX, nor whether Catholics or Protestants appear on one side of a modern column-count. The issue is whether the Hebrew prophet presents Yahweh Himself as the object of the piercing. The Masoretic text says He does; the earliest Christ-followers embraced the scandalous implication and worshiped the Crucified as “my Lord and my God.” That confession, not the shifting tides of English renderings, remains the touchstone of orthodoxy.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  “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).
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Well said aqwsed12345.

  Thank you for unpacking that. Unsaved bible critics have been attacking orthodoxy since almost the beginning. Fortunately, the early church leaders wrote thousands of pages of Christian defense. It's plenty of info for anyone who wants to know about Christianity. Some people just cannot stand to be in a student role, they must be the teacher regardless of how unqualified they are. This is the true nature of the heretic. There is not a single word in the English language to describe the true heretic.
  
  "Ignorant Hubris" is about as close as I have been able to get in describing Arch heretic's like JW.s. And it only applies to some of them. Most are just followers. The leaders and defenders earn the label ignorant hubris.

  The problem is that heretics do not want this kind of God to rule over them. And, they will do anything to try and stop him.