130. - Collection Point® | The Total Digital Asset Management System

3. The Structure of Individual Sections of Zechariah 175
•?3«, vv. 4, 15. Otherwise only 7.6.##2,7; 11.1, 9, 16; 12.6. In
ch. 7 the meaning is literal; in chs. 9-14 it is figurative of destruction.
"j^D, vv. 5, 9. There is a strong contrast here: 'the king will perish
from Gaza...O Zion, Your king comes to you'. Elsewhere in
Zechariah the word is found in 7.1 ('King Darius' in a date formula),
11.6, 14.5, 9, 10, 16, 17 (in which vv. 9 and 16-17 refer to Yahweh
as the king). There is an obvious connection between 9.9-10 and these
verses in ch. 14.
rro, 9.6, 10.##1,6. All these refer in some way to the establishment
of peace in Israel. The pride of the Philistines, the chariot and the
battle bow, will be cut off. Elsewhere the word occurs in Zechariah
only in 11.10 (in the phrase 'covenant which I cut') and 13.2, 8 (both
referring to judgment).
D'ii^K, 9.7, 16, is comparatively rare in Zechariah. It occurs in
expressions such as 'Yahweh your God' or 'I will be their (etc.) God'.
Verse 16, which contains the first type of expression, also reflects the
second ODJ> ]»»). Verse 7 speaks of Philistia as a remnant 'to our
God'. There is no warrant, therefore, for ignoring this word, but
rather confirmation that it is significant in Zechariah. Again, the
connection is not within vv. 1-8.
mvr, 9.7, 13. Otherwise 1.12; 2 (4x); 8 (3x); 10.3, 6; 11.14; 12.2-7
(6x); 14.5, 14,21.
-Qi>, 9.8.##4,7. Also 3.4 (hiphil); 7.14; 10.11; 13.2 (hiphil). The
unusual expression ntfoi "ODD also occurs in 7.14.
312), 9.8 (netoi -OBO), 12.##1,9 ('Return!'—'I will cause to return'
[i.e. 'restore']). Also 10.9, 10 ('return', 'cause them to return [from
Egypt]'; both used of blessing); 13.7 in chs. 9-14 (see above for
chs. 1-8). Zech. 9.12 and 10.9-10 correspond well to each other. I
wonder if there is an intentional contrast between the lack of "ni> and
aitf in 9.8, and the promise of both in 10.9-11, but it is impossible to
demonstrate this or to build on it.
In examining repeated words in the section 9.1-11.3, we have discovered
some surprising and possibly significant facts.
1. There does not seem to be much correspondence within the
section 9.1-8, certainly less than in any of the small sections
that we examined in Zechariah 1-8. The only plausible theory
of intentional structuring would have to be based on the names
of Philistine cities, and the textually doubtful ]'a (see below).