The Future of the House of David and the Dwellers in Jerusalem, the Servant Pierced, the Spirit Poured Out, The Superseding of Prophecy, the Fires of Refinement (Zechariah 12:1 to Zechariah 13:9).
Zechariah's experiences as previously described have brought home to him that the present time is not going to produce the hoped for golden age of God's rule. The dream of the eight visions (Zechariah 1:7 to Zechariah 6:15) which had promised so much of a purified Israel over whom would rule the Branch, appears to have turned sour. Instead of an Israel being established over whom the shepherd of Ezekiel is reigning (Ezekiel 37:15-28), it has ended up in the hands of false shepherds (Zechariah 11:4-17). His thoughts may well then have turned to the words of Isaiah depicting the coming Suffering Servant (Isaiah 50:4-9; Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12), for having been himself rejected and valued at thirty pieces of silver he foresees the coming of a Great Prophet and Shepherd Who will be in contrast to the false prophets, yet One Who will face rejection and suffering as he has himself.
So he recognises that the future of Jerusalem, as a picture of the people of God, must first be one of woe before God's glory is revealed. Tragedy must precede triumph.
His depiction of the future of ‘Jerusalem' is now outlined. It will be noted that it assumes first the coming establishment of Jerusalem as an independent political centre under Nehemiah by the very nature of what is described. Without that it could never have the prominence suggested by this picture. (In Zechariah's time it was still an unwalled huddle of buildings).
It then briefly recognises its chequered future. And finally it leads up to its future as the place from which salvation will be made available to the world and to its final experience of the blessing of God (Zechariah 14:3-21). Thus as in much of prophecy it contains a near and a far view. What is prophesied will apply through history but will culminate in the activity of the final days before the final establishment of God's rule.
The prophecy is necessarily given in symbolic terminology, for the background necessary to present it as it is presented in the New Testament was absent. The prophet spoke, in terms that he knew, of what was in fact beyond his comprehension. How could he visualise a world wide church? Rather he saw in Jerusalem as representing God's gathered people what we think of as ‘God's church' as surrounded by the world. And we should note that at that time it was God's church, His ‘congregation'. He could only necessarily speak in limited terms, for the full plan of God would have been incomprehensible, both to him and to the people. But he knew the central facts, that there would be suffering before triumph, that in the end the people of God would achieve victory, security and safety and that the King would come who would establish the reign of God.
But what does the word ‘Jerusalem' represent in these eschatological prophecies? In the near view it is the city, but it is the city seen as being the centre of the people of God. As we have seen earlier it is the city as representing the people of God (Zechariah 2:7). When men gathered against ‘Jerusalem' they were gathering against all who then represented God, those who had, as it were, come together to re-establish the Kingly Rule of God. Thus it is not just the city as it was in itself that is in mind, for that constantly comes under the condemnation of the prophets. It is rather the idea behind it, the idea of the ideal Jerusalem as being the gathering place of God's people. It is Jerusalem as the ideal centre of the true worship of God (compare Isaiah 2:2-3), with ‘those who dwell in it' being seen as representing all who worship and obey Him truly.
It is the place from which, through its people, God's truth will go to the world (Micah 4:2; Isaiah 2:3; Isaiah 62:1). It is the place from which God will ‘roar' and utter His voice when He brings judgment on the nations (Joel 3:16; Micah 1:2). It replaces the ark of the covenant as the throne of God (Jeremiah 3:16-17), until that throne is raised to Heaven at the resurrection of Christ. It is the place from which God Himself will establish His reign (Isaiah 24:23). So, linked with Jerusalem are thoughts which far transcend it, so that in the end it is itself transcended.
That this is so in Zechariah comes out in what we saw earlier, that ‘Zion', which was often synonymous with Jerusalem, which was partly built on Mount Zion, could also be used as a description of the people of God far away from Jerusalem (Zechariah 2:7). It was clear then that the people represented the city even when far away. In other words in a very real sense Jerusalem, Zion, is ‘the people of God' wherever they are.
That there is this difference is again emphasised in Zechariah 12:6 where he says, ‘Jerusalem will yet dwell in her own place, even Jerusalem.' Here the first ‘Jerusalem' initially represents His people as the true worshippers of God, wherever they are, who have been away, but will now return home. And they are necessarily a symbolic people, for none who had actually dwelt in Jerusalem would by then necessarily be alive. Thus he is not thinking here of just anyone who lives in Jerusalem. He is thinking of the true, returned people of God, the Jerusalem who return to Jerusalem.
These distinctions are stressed and amplified in the New Testament where the heavenly aspect of Jerusalem is stressed. For Paul distinguishes the Jerusalem ‘which is in bondage', the earthly city, from the Jerusalem ‘which is above' (Galatians 4:25-26), the heavenly Jerusalem, when pointing out that Christians are the ‘children of promise' (Galatians 4:28). They are the true Jerusalem. And Hebrews speaks of ‘Mount Zion' as being ‘the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem' (Hebrews 12:22). This leads on to the vision of the new Jerusalem, whose source is from Heaven, in ‘the new earth' (Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10) and again represents the whole people of God. So in all this it is the idea that is behind Jerusalem that is prevalent, not the city of Jerusalem itself. (Compare the similar use in many references in Isaiah where there is the Jerusalem/Zion which is the city of God in contrast with ‘the world city', the future glorious Jerusalem, which has eternal connections and will be part of the everlasting kingdom. See Isaiah 1:27; Isaiah 4:3-5; Isaiah 12:6; Isaiah 18:7; Isaiah 24:23; Isaiah 26:1-4; Isaiah 28:16; Isaiah 30:19; Isaiah 33:5; Isaiah 33:20; Isaiah 35:10; Isaiah 46:13; Isaiah 51:3; Isaiah 51:11; Isaiah 51:16; Isaiah 52:1; Isaiah 59:20; Isaiah 60:14; Isaiah 61:3; Isaiah 62:1; Isaiah 62:11; Isaiah 65:18-19; Isaiah 66:10; Isaiah 66:13; Isaiah 66:20).
And once we come to the New Testament Jerusalem is not so much a city as an idea, an idea closely aligned with the idea of the people of God. The old earthly Jerusalem has to be destroyed, and the real Jerusalem is the heavenly one with which His people are connected (Galatians 4:25-26). And that is what Zechariah has in mind when he thinks of ‘Jerusalem'.
Furthermore Peter also stresses the spiritual nature of ‘Zion' when he speaks of the church of God as living stones in the new Temple which is His church, built on the chief cornerstone and note that it is laid ‘in Zion' (1 Peter 2:4-7 based on Isaiah 28:16).
It is true that the prophets themselves saw their prophecies as necessarily relating to a ‘physical Jerusalem'. To them the people of God and Jerusalem were very much identified. But especially in the case of Isaiah it was very much an eschatological Jerusalem. His descriptions of it far exceed any possible conception of an earthly city. To him Jerusalem/Zion is synonymous with God's people (‘we, the daughter of Zion' - Isaiah 1:9); it will be purged by the removal of the filth of the daughter of Zion - Isaiah 4:4; it represents ‘the inhabitants of Jerusalem' - Isaiah 5:3; Isaiah 8:14; Isaiah 22:21; Isaiah 28:14; Isaiah 30:19; it is to arise and clothe itself in beauty - Isaiah 52:2; it is a place of rejoicing where weeping is heard no more - Isaiah 65:18-19); and it is from Jerusalem/Zion with its exalted, unearthly Temple, that God's message will go out to the world (Isaiah 2:4; Isaiah 62:6-7). It is the Jerusalem/Zion which is the city of God in contrast with the world city. It is the future glorious Jerusalem, which has eternal connections and will be part of the everlasting kingdom (Isaiah 1:27; Isaiah 4:3-5; Isaiah 12:6; Isaiah 18:7; Isaiah 24:23; Isaiah 26:1-4; Isaiah 28:16; Isaiah 30:19; Isaiah 33:5; Isaiah 33:20; Isaiah 35:10; Isaiah 46:13; Isaiah 51:3; Isaiah 51:11; Isaiah 51:16; Isaiah 52:1; Isaiah 59:20; Isaiah 60:14; Isaiah 61:3; Isaiah 62:1; Isaiah 62:11; Isaiah 65:18-19; Isaiah 66:10; Isaiah 66:13; Isaiah 66:20).
It was, however, to be expected that the prophets would stop short of making it fully heavenly or seeing in it simply a picture of the people of God as such. They had no concept of Heaven. And they could not even conceive of a people of God not connected with Jerusalem. (It took the early church great searching of heart before they also did so). So as they peered with God's help into the future, Jerusalem was their conception of the people of God. Surrounded on all sides by a wicked world they were God's people, ‘Jerusalem'. The prophets had no full or detailed conception of an afterlife, or of a spiritual kingdom, or of living in a heavenly sphere, and did not think in those terms. Even when, rarely, resurrection is mentioned it is closely connected with this earth (Isaiah 26:19). So a Jerusalem purified and made spiritual, a perfected Jerusalem that fulfilled all the hopes of the prophets and the true people of God, was God's ideal. It represented His true ‘congregation (church)'.
The idea of ‘Jerusalem' both in the near view and in the far view therefore represented hope, deliverance, the congregation of Israel gathered together, the presence of God with His people, a centre of God's rule, and the final fulfilment of what God intended His people to be. It was to be the fulfilment of all their expectations. And that was why inevitably it had in the end to become a heavenly city. For no earthly city, populated by earthly people, could achieve those expectations. We can therefore justly take the idea of Jerusalem as Paul did and see it as representing all God's people wherever they were.
But the prophets could not wholly think like that, for, as mentioned above, there was then little specific detailed conception of an afterlife, or of a world-wide, ‘invisible' kingdom. So to them it was in Jerusalem that they saw the fulfilment of all their hopes for the future, it represented the people of God surrounded by an antagonistic world, and it resulted in the triumph of God depicted in earthly terms which were never full worked out.
But in the end, the important question is not so much how the prophets saw it as how God intended it to be seen. And there the New Testament position is directly relevant. In the New Testament the idea of Jerusalem is related to what we call ‘Heaven'. Yet even ‘Heaven', like ‘Jerusalem' to the prophets, is but a name for the ideal future, the place where God dwells, the future home of His people. It simply recognises that the Jerusalem of the prophetic hopes could not be realised on earth. Thus Revelation finally amplifies it in terms of a ‘new Earth'.
So as we read Zechariah and the prophets we must see Jerusalem sometimes as it was and sometimes in terms of its heavenly ideal, as representing God's whole people.