This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


Sometimes Trinitarian apologists interpret Zechariah 12:10 as a reference to God being crucified. Here is the text as it appears in the New American Standard Bible (NASB):

Zechariah 12.10 (NASB)
I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

I have bolded the confusing part of this verse. The speaker is God (Yahweh) and the ones he is addressing are the household of David (the inhabitants of Jerusalem). The way this reads, God himself will be pierced by the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Then, suddenly, the subject changes from “me” to “him.” Although the people pierce God they mourn for him (i.e. someone other than God). The mourning will be as intense as the pain one would feel having lost his or her only son. We know that this verse was understood by the first generation of Christians as referring to Christ because John quotes it and applies it to Jesus’ crucifixion:

John 19.34-37 (NASB)
34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. 36 For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, “NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED.”

The capitalized words are direct quotations from the Old Testament (OT). There can be no question that John concluded that the soldiers’ piercing of Jesus’ side was a fulfillment of Zechariah 12.10. But, if the “me” of Zechariah 12.10 refers to Jesus (the one pierced) then surely he must be Yahweh, the God of Israel, right? Before delving in to the theological implications, let us first examine the text from a variety of sources.

Zechariah 12.10
MT Leningrad Codex 1008   וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָרוּ וְסָפְדוּ עָלָיו כְּמִסְפֵּד עַל־הַיָּחִיד
LXX Septuagint ? “…καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός μὲ ἀνθ΄ὧν κατωρχήσαντο καὶ κόψονται ἐπ’αὐτὸν κοπετὸν, ὡς ἐπ’ἀγαπητῷ…”
VAT Vatican Codex of John 19.37 4th c.   …ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν. (John only quotes part of Zechariah 12.10)
JPS Jewish Publication Society 1985 “…and they shall lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son…”
Stone Stone Edition of the Tanach 1996 “…They will look toward Me because of those whom they have stabbed; they will mourn over him as one mourns over an only [child]…”
KJV King James Version 1769 “…and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son…”
NASB New American Standard Bible 1995 “…and they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son…”
NET New English Translation 2005 “….they will look to me, the one they have pierced. They will lament for him as one laments for an only son…”
ESV English Standard Version 2007 “…when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child…”
NRSV New Revised Standard Version 1989 “…when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child…”
NAB New American Bible (Catholic) 1991 “…and they shall look on him whom they have thrust through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only son…”

As you can see this verse is translated in several different ways. Some translations like the Jewish ones (JPS, Stone) make the pierced one someone other than God, though the people look to God because of the slain one. The KJV, NASB, NET, and ESV all render it as if God is the one pierced and then abruptly change subjects to talk about “him” (i.e. someone other than God who was identified as “me”). But, why would they mourn over “him” when they pierced “me?” Lastly, the NRSV and NAB both omit “me” from the verse and smooth everything out so that the house of David will look on the one they pierced and mourn for him as well. I have to admit that I find this matter very difficult to get my hands around owing to my general ignorance of Hebrew. Like most Christians, I have to depend on the research of experts in order to understand what is going on. For example, consider the following explanation, taken from the NET study Bible:

Because of the difficulty of the concept of the mortal piercing of God, the subject of this clause, and the shift of pronoun from “me” to “him” in the next, many MSS read…’to the one whom,’ a reading followed by NAB, NRSV rather than the MT’s [Masoretic Text]…‘to me whom.’ The reasons for such alternatives, however, are clear – they are motivated by scribes who found such statements theologically objectionable – and they should be rejected in favor of the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) of the MT.

Apparently there are some manuscript variations here. It is interesting that the NET is not accusing the NAB and NRSV translators of an error in rendering the text, but rather an error in choosing the best text. It seems there are several Hebrew manuscripts out there that get rid of “me” and replace it with “the one whom.” This is the text that the NAB and NRSV followed.

NRSV   New Revised Standard Version 1989   “…when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child…”
NAB New American Bible (Catholic) 1991   “…and they shall look on him whom they have thrust through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only son…”

The NET, however, makes a good case that it is more likely that scribes would alter the text from something theologically awkward to something much smoother. Since I do not really know much about Hebrew manuscripts (and my Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is not with me to consult), I will have to trust the NET people on this one that the more difficult reading is more likely to be correct. However, there are still two more possible translations of the same Hebrew text; and they divide between Jewish and Christian translators. On the one hand, the Christian translations make it sound like God is pierced and then suddenly change to talk about God in the third person (or someone else like the Messiah). On the other hand, the Jewish translations render this same Hebrew phrase as referring to someone other than God. Here are two representative translations (Jewish first and Christian second):

Stone   Stone Edition of the Tanach 1996   “…They will look toward Me because of those whom they have stabbed; they will mourn over him as one mourns over an only [child]…”
NET   New English Translation 2005   “…they will look to me, the one they have pierced. They will lament for him as one laments for an only son…”

So, which is correct? How should the Hebrew be translated? While poking around on the web searching for help on this I found a really interesting YouTube video that explains the translation and why there is such a difference.

Essentially, his case turns on how the אֵת should affect the translation. He argues that it causes “me” to be split from the direct object. I find the whole matter rather fascinating, but cannot say who is right. Perhaps Karl, or someone with a good knowledge of Classical Hebrew grammar can help confirm if this video is correct. Even so, I know that I for one, wouldn’t want to base my belief in something as important as whether or not Jesus is God on such a shaky foundation.

28 Responses to “Who Was Pierced in Zechariah 12.10?”

  1. on 17 Aug 2011 at 9:43 pmRon S.


    What great timing! Over the last few days I’ve been having a bit of a extended Facebook debate in the “Who is Jesus” group with a hard-headed trinitarian (of the hard-core variety, are there any other kind?) on this very subject. His original post was a copy of his own little YouTube video where he railed on that this verse is direct proof that the OT said the Messiah would be God. His assertion was that since the speaker was YHWH and Zech 12:10 uses “me” then it shows that the slain Messiah would be YHWH Himself.

    In a subsequent post he made the comment of “Zech 12:10 is a Hebrew text so that’s why I addressed the Hebrew text. The reason why it is a Trinitarian view is because that is what the Apostle John interpreted it to be. The interpretation of OT texts by the Apostles is the authority for the correct interpretation.”

    So of course I then said “GREAT! Then you’ve just conceded your argument. The Apostle John did not interpret Zech 12:10 as saying “Me”, since he quoted it as “HIM” in John 19:37. BTW, no translation uses “me” in John’s quote. Glad to hear you’re gonna differ to the Apostle on this one! ;-)”.

    FYI – pretty much every Bible translation out there shows John quoting it as “THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED”. All use “him” instead of “me”. Therefore if John understood the speaker to be YHWH, then John is indicating he understood YHWH to be referring to someone other than Himself. Pretty simple IMO.

    Of course we’ve gone round on round on it because he thinks John believed Jesus was God and taught that from John 1:1 on (as most all trinis also think). So therefore he believes John must be viewing the “him” as YHWH. Round and round we have gone. 🙁

    For those interested, be sure to check out the link I originally gave him from the great “Trinity Delusion” website on this subject here:

    I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this interesting subject too!

  2. on 18 Aug 2011 at 8:05 amXavier

    Ron S.

    I’ve been having a bit of a extended Facebook debate in the “Who is Jesus” group with a hard-headed trinitarian (of the hard-core variety, are there any other kind?)

    Hope not, man sounds more of a nut than many of them! 😛

  3. on 18 Aug 2011 at 8:24 amWolfgang


    would the change in pronouns from “me” to “him” be an indication that perhaps the punctuation of the statement should be different ? The Hebrew text did not have a punctuation, and at times – due to the interpretation held by the translators – in translation a certain punctuation is given while perhaps another punctuation would solve apparent contradictions/problems within the text.

    For example, using the KJV text of the passage, perhaps the correct sense is as follows, expressed by a different punctuation:

    “…and they shall look upon Me. Whom they have pierced, and (even) they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son…”

    The sentence / passage does logically and from its content divide up in several parts. The difficulty arises when parts that are not logically and from their content connected, are linked to each other.
    “They shall look upon Me” relates to the statement just before this, where YHWH is mentioned as saying “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: …”

    “Who they have pierced” and “mourn for him …” go together, as they show the reaction of those who were responsible for his death to the grace extended by YHWH (as stated in the opening part of the statement just before “they shall look upon Me”).

    When thus those parts which logically fit together are considered, the passage can be rather easily and simply understood in a manner which does not at all cause those difficulties which so many translations have.

  4. on 18 Aug 2011 at 9:24 amXavier

    Is anyone on here fluent in OT Hebrew & NT Koine Greek?

  5. on 18 Aug 2011 at 10:12 amAnthony Buzzard

    Hi, All, this may sometimes be enough to make the atheists mock

    Yes, I know we have to comment on these verses. We did our little bit in our two books. But honestly, how many people might have been won for the Kingdom, while we settle what may not be able to be settled!

    The key is to start with the obvious and unarguable. God cannot die, so he was not crucified!

    That settled, we may guess that God can be “crucified” in His Son. You crucify one you “crucify” the other.

    Or, if the MSS have been altered, which is possible (you are not going to be able to settle this finally—so why worry?), then it was HIM, the Son who was literally crucified (as is painfully obvious from the NT) and there is no reference to the Father here. John reads it that way and that is enough.

    Why not leave the detail unresolved and just point out that God cannot die. Jesus cannot be God, therefore.

    You can point out to all Trinitarians that their best scholars wind up in inevitable contradiction. Thus, James White (The Forgotten Trinity) says that you cannot have more than one YHVH, but he later says that the Father is YHVH and Jesus is YHVH. He does not know that 1 plus 1 is 2!

    Dunn is much more useful in his Did the First Christians Worship Jesus:

    Jesus is not YHVH, not the God of Israel.


  6. on 18 Aug 2011 at 10:13 amXavier

    Thanks Anthony.

    Anyone else?

  7. on 18 Aug 2011 at 10:39 amWolfgang


    The key is to start with the obvious and unarguable. God cannot die, so he was not crucified!

    yes, indeed …. but was that the point with which Sean was concerned?
    Furthermore, since the obvious is settled, I at least would like to understand those scriptures correctly and therefore I do invest some time and effort to learn what it says and which understanding of it does indeed fit with the obvious point that you pointed out.
    It seemed to me that Sean also was more interested in properly understanding this passage and determining what would be a proper translation of it … because for sure Sean has no problem understanding the obvious either!

  8. on 18 Aug 2011 at 2:07 pmSarah

    Very interesting video, Sean. Great find.

  9. on 19 Aug 2011 at 5:43 pmMark C.

    Anybody know how the Septuagint renders this verse?

  10. on 19 Aug 2011 at 9:03 pmSean


    καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός μὲ ἀνθ΄ὧν κατωρχήσαντο καὶ κόψονται ἐπ’αὐτὸν κοπετὸν, ὡς ἐπ’ἀγαπητῷ

    here is my translation:

    and they will look to me for the sake of those whom they treated-despitefully (or danced-in-triumph-over) and they will lament over him mourning as over a beloved

    here is Brenton’s translation:

    and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved friend</em

  11. on 20 Aug 2011 at 3:50 amMark C.

    Thanks, Sean. How does that compare with the Greek of John 19:34-37?

  12. on 20 Aug 2011 at 6:28 pmRay

    It seems to me that a Christian may hear both the voice of God the Father, and also the voice of the Lord Jesus together in Zech 12:10.

  13. on 21 Aug 2011 at 9:39 amSean


    I did include both the LXX and the NT Greek in my article (see above). Even so, I’ll copy this down here as well:

    ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν

    they will look to/on he whom they pierced

    What’s interesting here is that John did not quote the LXX. Either he translated from the Hebrew himself or else he used another Greek translation. The “me” is gone and the quote focuses solely upon the one who was pierced. Still, this isn’t that different from the Masoretic Text (MT) which reads “They will look to me about he whom they pierced.” It is entirely possible that John had access to an older Hebrew manuscript that read this way. (We only have two MTs, one from the 9th c. and the other from the 10th.)

  14. on 21 Aug 2011 at 4:24 pmJaco

    Another point of piercing the one leads to piercing another is here:

    Luke 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this [child] is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

    Vicarious suffering is not a foreign concept in the Bible:

    Zechariah 2:8 “For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.”

    Acts 9:5 “‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.'”

    Matt. 25:40 “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”

    Trinitarians are simply desperate…


  15. on 21 Aug 2011 at 6:19 pmXavier



  16. on 23 Aug 2011 at 10:47 pmJoseph


    The key is to start with the obvious and unarguable. God cannot die, so he was not crucified!

    To add to this. In John 20:17, Yeshua said that the Father is HIS God. This is after he had been crucified and resurrected! So, using the “ignorant man-god” argument is not applicable here.

  17. on 16 Jan 2012 at 9:21 amStephen Tsemane

    Sean, first and foremost,we need to understand that it is Jehovah himself who became Jesus.so,despite the discripancy in translation of Zecharea 12:10,the point is,the fullness of GOD dwelt bodily in Christ(col 1:19).Again st Paul said to the elders at Ephesus “….be shepherds of the church of GOD,Which he bought with his very own blood”acts 20:28. Clearly GOD’s own BLOOD redeemed the church! Surely it happened at Calvary when Christ was pierced to the fullfilment of Zecharea 12:10. The translation therefore of “me” and “him” one way or another, refers to the same being,GOD! Anthony my friend,yes GOD cannot die,infact,he never does.However, that is true in his SPIRITUAL NATURE,not in his flesh(The WORD was made FLESH….’john 1:14) He(GOD) became FLESH that he may die in FLESH as Christ to cleanse us from sin.And after his resurrection,Thomas said to him:my Lord and my God.To which statement Jesus did NOT object! so to my best understanding, by “me” God refered to his spiritual self, by “him” he refered to his bodily form(CHRIST). So, THUS SAITH THE LORD,”…they will look to me,the one they have pierced,and they will mourn for him…” in this, God precisely saw himself in Christ. To prove this, consider what Jehovah says in Psalm 72:2 “I will open my mouth in parables…” Yet,it is Jesus who actually spoke in parables! So truly Jesus is the triune GOD(FATHER, SON & HOLLY GHOST) himself,for Jehovah spoke of him as though speaking of himself. Hence even the apostles baptized in his name(acts 2:38) who said to them “…baptize them into the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holly Spirit…”. And surely the apostles did not disobey their Lord,did they? So they may translate it however they want,but THUS SAIHT THE LORD’ the BLOOD of Jesus is the BLOOD of God! May the Lord God abundantly bless you brethren!!!

  18. on 11 Dec 2012 at 11:11 pmSheryl

    I came upon this post and watched the video Sean supplied. I agree it was fascinating and I went to Mr. Benner’s website to learn more. Is anyone here familiar with Jeff Benner and his teaching?

  19. on 12 Dec 2012 at 2:27 amTim (aka Antioch)

    I see Stephens comment uses Col 1:19 to support the trinity theory.

    For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him

    But then we see in Ephesians 3:19, Paul again uses the concept of ‘fullness of God’ when speaking about the Ephesians.

    …that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God

    If Jesus is God because he was filled with the fullness of God, then Paul must also be saying that the Ephesians (and perhaps all of the saints) can also be God.

  20. on 12 Dec 2012 at 8:46 amRay

    I believe the one that was pierced on the cross was the same one that was ruling with the Father, being Lord over Israel in the heavenly realm, the holy Lord that Israel had not yet seen, the one who was the great God under the one true God (even the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, the God of Israel) that this one, being in the Father, taking part in all that went on in heaven, watching over all the goings on that happened upon this earth, that it is this one that the scriptures prophesied about, and that in piercing his Son Jesus Christ, we pierced God himself.

    The last two words of the above statement can be taken in several ways it seems to me.

  21. on 14 Apr 2013 at 12:19 amMike

    There are a number of important points about this passage. First, the term “piercing” usually indicates death.[2] Interestingly, the piercing likely refers to the death of Christ, though the word does not specifically mean crucifixion.[3] Second, it is essentially God who is pierced. However, there is a distinction between the person pierced and Jehovah. Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch note, “. . . the transition from the first person (alay) to the third (alayv) points to the fact that the person slain, although essentially one with Jehovah, is personally distinct from the Supreme God.”[4] Third, the manuscript evidence clearly points to the change from “me” to “him” as accurate.[5]

    [2] F. Duane Lindsey, “Zechariah,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983., p. 1567.
    [3] Ibid.
    [4] Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002, p. 610.
    [5] D.A. Carson, The New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, fourth edition, Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994, n.p.

  22. on 31 Jul 2013 at 3:48 amLinford

    Jist reading some of the points made but how do you explain the father son and the Holy Spirit involvement in the resurrection?

    Gal 1:1    Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

    Joh 2:19    Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.Joh 2:20    Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?Joh 2:21    But he spake of the temple of his body.

    Rom 8:11    But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

    Here is a clear picture of the Trinity involved in one of greatest events in human history.

  23. on 25 Apr 2015 at 8:20 amBob

    I think many of the posts fail to recognize the distinction between ontology and functionality/role. To their credit, trinitarians espouse ontological equality but functional inequality between the Father and the Son. What this means is that both can be of the same ontological “substance” (i.e. Deity) without violating their distinct functional roles (i.e. Father and Son) respectively.

    This is analogous to a human family structure that sees a human father as the final authority in the household (i.e. “the one true god” in the human hierarchy) but also sees a mother as every bit as human as the father but with a subordinate role (i.e. a god to their children but not to her husband in the human hierarchy).

    Thus, it is unfair to accuse the trinitarian of claiming that Jesus is one and the same as God the Father–such a position is actually modalism, not trinitarianism. Perhaps without recognizing the implications of their position, trinitarians are espousing that the YHWH of the Old Testament is actually a family, not a person.

  24. on 04 Jun 2015 at 12:37 pmDavid

    I don’t know why folk are so exercised and concerned about this passage. It says what it says! It clearly refers to 2 objects, the Me and the Him. So?

    Which ever way you render this passage (whether as one translation KJV has it that it is all “me” or as the ESV has it me and him), it changes absolutely NOTHING!

    How you interpret what it means, can mean very different things though!

    Even among the Jewish Rabbis there are different interpretations as to the meaning of this passage, with Rashi saying:

    “The words, “The land shall mourn,” are found in the prophecy of Zechariah, and he prophesies of the future, that they shall mourn on account of Messiah, the son of Joseph, who shall be slain in the war of God and Magog”

    Other rabbis will claim that the “one pierced” is the Jewish people in a battle, mainly because of all the mourning that is going on. There may well be a case for that, however, it is unlikely to be the full meaning of the text here and Rashi himself identified it as Messianic.

    In all honesty, an interpretation like that of: “they” (the Jewish people), mourning because of “him” also the Jewish people, is a very unlikely and unconvincing use of language! “They” is plural, whereas “Him” is deliberately SINGULAR. Therefore such an interpretation of this passage would be bending the language to suit the idea that the “They” must be singular Israel’s soldiers….extremely unlikely! Further, are all Israel’s soldiers going to be “pierced”? And seriously, does one “pierce” or as one Jewish Bible has translated it “stabbed”, an entire mass of people (in this case stabbed an army)?

    No, when it comes to interpreting the meaning of this passage, it does require care and unfortunately, those that are worried that it could reveal Christ as the pierced Messiah, are right to do so, simply because if the passage is Messianic (which it certainly is), and the Messiah was pierced (which in Christ’s case, he certainly was), then this passage could well be indicating a national Israeli mourning over the piercing of Christ the Messiah.

    If you think it may be someone else, because you can’t accept that it could be Christ, then you should still realise that the one pierced is an individual, whose piercing is a cause of grief to not only G-d but the Jewish people, at a future time during the battle of Gog.

    In essence, there is no problem if you interpret this from a Christian point of view, with interpreting the passage as Yahweh being the one “looked to” and Christ being the one “pierced”. It is impossible to pierce Yahweh, but Christ certainly was pierced. To suggest that from a “Trinitarian” point of view, the passage must say that it is the “me” who must be pierced (because Yahweh and Christ are one), is to misunderstand the nature of the Father and the Son.

    If one insists that this passage “must” mean something else, on the basis of personal prejudice, then you must explain what it does mean, if you think you have a good explanation. I have to say that from my own view, it fits Yahweh being the ‘me’ and Christ being the ‘him’.

  25. on 01 Nov 2015 at 10:18 pmJossep

    The passage of Zechariah 12:10 is out of the context if we translate it as Hashem that crucified. For Hashem is not a man. And There are people that such want Jesus to be God. Why christianity want the world to confess that Jesus is god? I think name is an identity. And God told the children of israel, there is no other God but Hashem, Elohei avraham,yitschaq and ya’aqov. Hashem told us that his name is forever. Forever means never change to his son name, and anything. Hashem is God. Hope this passage can help you to understand my christian brothers. Numbers 23:19 לא איש אל ויכזב ובן אדם ויתנחם ההוא אמר ולא יעשה ודבר ולא יקימנה God is not a man that he should lie, nor the son of man that he should repent. Has he said and shall not do it? Or has he spoken and shall not make it good?

    Lie and repent are belong to human. And also worry, afraid (before jesus crucifixion) are not belong to God. God bless you

  26. on 15 Dec 2017 at 3:21 pmGolanv Waya

    For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ {as} coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

    John is NOT pointing out that a man would come in the flesh, because that is the case for every human being. He is declaring that Messiah is deity who came in the flesh. I am seeing this done more and more claiming that the Son was just human and nothing more than a prophet. I find it distressing to say the least.

  27. on 15 Dec 2017 at 3:23 pmGolanv Waya

    BTW I am not a Trinitarian but I feel you need to study what YHVH of Hosts is if you feel the Messiah was not divine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymCOTtY2eWk&t=1s

  28. on 25 Aug 2018 at 6:38 amhoracieux

    Interesting post Sean and thanks for the excellent link.

    Jeff’s video makes it clear that the direct object marker את is key to understanding Zechariah 12:10.
    This was even more obvious to me after I watched egwpisteuw’s presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIL-ZUKPDiA

    In his video, egwpisteuw attempts to demonstrate that Jesus is Yahweh. Note what he says at 2′ 04″: “the direct object marker את is not translated,” that’s his mistake!
    Wow, this doesn’t seem to matter to egwpisteuw when in fact את is a key word that has the power to alter the meaning of the entire verse.

    Anyone else wish to comment?


Leave a Reply