Zechariah 6:13

Even he... and he. — The pronoun is most emphatic in both cases. It implies that “He” shall be the true builder, “He” the true ruler.

And he shall be a priest upon his throne. — This is the only natural translation of the words. The word “priest” cannot be here taken as “prince” (as in 2 Samuel 8:8), for the expression “high priest” (Zechariah 6:11) sufficiently limits its meaning. Nor can “throne” mean merely “seat” (as in 1 Samuel 4:13), because the regal dignity of “Branch” must have been generally recognised from Jeremiah 23:5, &c. LXX., καὶ ἔσται ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ, καὶ βουλὴ εἰρηνικὴ ἔσται� “And there shall be a priest at his right hand, and a peaceful council shall be between them twain.”

Counsel of peace — i.e., a counsel productive of peace. “Peace” denotes the perfection of all highest blessings, temporal and spiritual.

Shall be between them both. — The interpretations of this verse are various — we will note the chief of them. Hitzig holds that the Messiah and an ideal priest are referred to in the clause “counsel of peace shall be between them both.” But we cannot see how the thought of some ideal priest and king, who would coincide in some unity of purpose, could have occurred to the minds of the prophet’s hearers. There would be, moreover, no special reason for speaking of unity as existing between a king and a priest; for, as a matter of history, the priests and kings were seldom at variance, though the prophets and kings were frequently so. Rosenmüller considers that the offices of priest and king are alluded to. But a “counsel of peace” could not be spoken of as existing between two abstracts. Keil takes the words as referring to the two characters of ruler and priest combined in the person of the Messiah. But in this case the clause would be superfluous. Why should there not be unity between two such characters combined in one such person? Koehler thinks that the reference is to the two offices of the Messiah, and that the prophecy speaks of a plan devised by the Messiah in His double character, whereby peace and salvation should be secured to His people. But this is in accord with the modes of thought of neither Old nor New Testament. Such an idea would have been incomprehensible to the prophet’s hearers; and in the New Testament any such unity of design for the salvation of mankind is spoken of as existing between the Father and the Messiah (not between two of the offices of the latter), e.g., John 6:38; John 10:15; John 3:16; Colossians 1:19). The expression “between them both” can only mean between two persons, not between the two abstract ideas of royalty and priesthood. Nor can it mean between the king and the priest, for only one person is mentioned, who is himself a priest on a royal throne. The only two persons mentioned are “Branch” (the Prince of Peace: Isaiah 9:6) and the Lord Himself. It can, then, only mean between them. We must admit that the passage would have been easier of interpretation had it run, “between him and the Lord.” But when we, in the light of later revelation, consider the Divine nature of “Branch,” we can understand the fitness of the expression “between them both,” though to the prophet’s original hearers it must have sounded enigmatical.