Tracing word origins of môtsâ'âh will lead back to yâtsâ'. They are related, but not identical. Yâtsâ' is singular and refers to Jesus’ “coming forth” (KJV) from Bethlehem at his incarnation. Môtsâ'âh is plural and refers to Jesus’ origins. In it, we glimpse Jesus’ activities before his incarnation, activities which are said to be from “everlasting” (KJV).

What is “everlasting?” That word, ‛ôlâm, is highlighted in green and Strong’s defines it as:

H5769

עלם    עולם

‛ôlâm  ‛ôlâm

o-lawm', o-lawm'

From H5956; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always: - always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare H5331, H5703.

The NIV above renders ‛ôlâm as “from old, from ancient times,” but does ‛ôlâm mean eternal or just really old? The same word, ‛ôlâm, is used in the two verses below, again highlighted in green and this time, applied to Yahweh:

Psalms 90:2

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. (KJV)

Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. (NASB)

Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. (NIV)

Before the mountains themselves were born, Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God. (NWT)

Psalms 93:2

Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. (KJV)

Your throne is established from of old; You are from everlasting. (NASB)

Your throne was established long ago; you are from all eternity. (NIV)

Your throne is firmly established from long ago; You are from time indefinite. (NWT)

We would not say Yahweh had an origin. Instead, we would say he is eternal, or ‛ôlâm. Micah 5:2 tells us that Jesus’ origins are eternal as well, ‛ôlâm . Micah uses môtsâ'âh and yâtsâ' to contrast Jesus’ origin in his incarnation against his existence and activities in eternity past.

Adam Clarke agrees. “...from time as it came out of eternity. That is, there was no time in which he has not been going-forth-coming in various ways to save men…so he is the Eternal, and no part of what was created.”[9]

John Gill wrote, “The phrases are expressive of the eternity of his divine nature and person...so as the former part of the text sets forth his human birth, this his divine generation...”[10]

Robert Jamieson also stated, “The plain antithesis of this clause, to ‘come forth out of thee’ (from Beth-lehem), shows that the eternal generation of the Son is meant. The term conveys the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable (compare Ps 90:2; Pr 8:22, 23; Joh 1:1). Messiah’s generation as man coming forth unto God to do His will on earth is from Beth-lehem; but as Son of God, His goings forth are from everlasting.”[11] (emphasis mine)

Micah 5:2 proves Jesus is not a created being, but is from ‛ôlâm from everlasting, from eternity.

Zechariah, Prophesies Fulfilled in Jesus,

And Paragraph 19 (cont.)

Paragraph 19 states:

…Five hundred years in advance, Zechariah prophesied that the Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:15)...[12]

What does Zechariah 11:12 and Matthew 26:15 say?

Zechariah 11:12

And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. (KJV)

I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!" So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. (NASB)

I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. (NIV)

Then I said to them: “If it is good in YOUR eyes, give [me] my wages; but if not, refrain.” And they proceeded to pay my wages, thirty pieces of silver. (NWT)

Matthew 26:15

And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. (KJV)

and said, "What are you willing to give me to betray Him to you?" And they weighed out thirty pieces of silver to him. (NASB)

and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. (NIV)

and said: “What will YOU give me to betray him to YOU?” They stipulated to him thirty silver pieces. (NWT)

Jesus, the Messiah, was valued at thirty pieces of silver, as prophesied in Zechariah 11:12 and fulfilled in Matthew 26:15, as so stated by the WTBTS above. But why stop at Zechariah 11:12?

Zechariah 11:13

And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD. (KJV)

Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD. (NASB)

And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter. (NIV)

At that, Jehovah said to me: “Throw it to the treasury—the majestic value with which I have been valued from their standpoint.” Accordingly I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw it into the treasury at the house of Jehovah. (NWT)

Who was valued at thirty pieces of silver in Zechariah 11:13?

The speaker is clearly identified as Yahweh, Jehovah God and here, Yahweh clearly states that he was valued at the thirty pieces of silver.

Who was valued at thirty pieces of silver in the fulfillment in Matthew 26:15?

Jesus Christ.

For the Trinitarian, there is no dilemma in these statements. Yahweh is God. Jesus is God. Therefore, both Yahweh and Jesus could be and were valued at thirty pieces of silver.

To date, the JW I study with and as much as I’m aware, the WTBTS have failed to offer an adequate explanation for this. The JW I study with contends that in this instance, Zechariah is a type of Christ, that they were both earthly representatives of Jehovah only and Jesus is valued at thirty pieces of silver in much the same way Zechariah was, with the value attributing to God instead of themselves.

Was Zechariah a representative of God? Certainly. Several discrepancies between Zechariah and Jesus, however, are evident:

1.    Zechariah asked for his wages. Jesus did not. Judas asked for payment, not Jesus.

2.    Zechariah received thirty pieces of silver. Jesus did not. Judas received thirty pieces of silver, not Jesus.

3.    Zechariah disposed of his thirty pieces of silver by throwing them to the potter. Jesus did not. Judas disposed of his thirty pieces of silver by throwing them into the temple and it was then used to purchase a potter’s field. (See Matthew 27:7.)

I do not contend that Zechariah is a type of Judas, of course, for in no way or manner did Zechariah betray Yahweh as Judas betrayed Jesus. But these discrepancies do, however, indicate that Jesus did not fill Zechariah’s role in this prophesy. JW apologists assert that since Jesus was Jehovah’s representative on earth and was the exact representation of Jehovah (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3), valuing Jesus at thirty pieces of silver would be the same as valuing Jehovah at thirty pieces of silver. Apologists claim this prophesy (and others) speak of Jesus’ agency only. The discrepancies listed above sharply contrast Zechariah’s agency with Jesus’ role, however. Jesus was valued at thirty pieces of silver, yes, but he did not ask for, receive, nor dispose of the thirty pieces of silver as Zechariah did. Jesus exactly mirrors the role of Yahweh, Jehovah God, not Zechariah’s.

Zechariah 11:12,13 and Matthew 26:15 apply an Old Testament prophesy about Yahweh directly to Jesus Christ. This makes sense only if Yahweh and Jesus both are God.

Also, while we are in Zechariah and our attention is on prophesies Jesus Christ fulfilled:

Zechariah 12:10

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (KJV)

"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. (NASB)

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. (NIV)

“And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and entreaties, and they will certainly look to the One whom they pierced through, and they will certainly wail over Him as in the wailing over an only [son]; and there will be a bitter lamentation over him as when there is bitter lamentation over the firstborn [son]. (NWT)

Please note the NWT omits “me” before the one/whom they have pierced in this verse.

The Zechariah 12:10 footnote of the NET Bible states:

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 אַלֵי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (’ale ’et ’asher, “to the one whom,” a reading followed by NAB, NRSV) rather than the MT’s אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (’ela ’et ’asher, “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.[13]

The word translated as “me” is 'êth (̀et, NET Bible), which is defined in Strong’s as:

H853

את

'êth

ayth

Apparently contracted from H226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely): - (As such unrepresented in English.)[14] (emphasis mine)

In Hebrew, we read from right to left so 'ê̂th is composed of the letters aleph and tav (or tau). Aleph to tav figures prominently in Hebrew as a phrase similar to our English saying from A to Z, but much more so, because in Hebrew, the individual letters are not only what is meant or alluded to. The phrase doesn’t mean just every letter from A to Z, per se, but also the whole – every word made up of every letter from A to Z. As such, aleph-tav (composing every word) is seen as the Messiah, The Word made flesh. Aleph-tav is also considered a claim to divinity, corresponding to John’s use of Alpha and Omega (the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet) as a divine title in Revelation. (See Revelation 1:8, 21:6 and 22:13.) Aleph-tav is considered a grammatical marker pointing to the direct object of a preposition or verb, true, but some (the author included) believe it is also a marker of special significance, to draw our attention to God in whatever passage aleph-tav appears as it does here.[15] This belief is not limited to Christianity – in the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Akiva suggests that every occurrence of the aleph-tav in the Old Testament is a sign for the presence of God and expounded on these occurrences, as did Rabbi Simeon and others.[16]

Of aleph-tav and its correlation in John’s usage of Alpha and Omega as a divine title in Revelation 1:8, Albert Barnes wrote:

Among the Jewish Rabbins, it was common to use the first and the last letters of the Hebrew alphabet to denote the whole of anything, from beginning to end.[17]

Vincents’ Words Studies agrees, “The Rabbinical writers used the phrase from Aleph to Tav, to signify completely, from beginning to end.”[18] John Gill, commenting on Revelation 1:8, also wrote, “Moreover, these letters, Alpha and Omega, being the first and the last in the alphabet, may stand for the whole; and it seems to be a proverbial expression taken from the Jews, who use the phrase, from Aleph to Tau, for the whole of any thing, which two letters in the Hebrew alphabet stand in the same place as these…”[19]

Adam Clarke further states:

… I am from eternity to eternity. This mode of speech is borrowed from the Jews, who express the whole compass of things by aleph and tau, the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet… With the rabbins meeleph vead tau, "from aleph to tau," expressed the whole of a matter, from the beginning to the end.[20] (emphasis mine)

Who is from eternity? Even JWs will answer that it is Yahweh, Jehovah God who is eternal and in fact, interpret Revelation 1:8, in which Alpha and Omega (correlating to aleph-tav in Hebrew usage) are ascribed to the Lord as pointing to the Father.

In any event, 'êth is also a grammatical marker, as per Strong’s definition above. Yahweh is the speaker in Zechariah 12:10 so this is a very clear indication that Yahweh is the one who was pierced. Yahweh is also indicated as the subject of the piercing in Zechariah 12:10 in “…the large majority of reliable Hebrew manuscripts, the LXX, the Old Latin, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and the Greek versions of Aquilla, Symmachus, and Theodotion.”[21] Yet, the JW I study with has not offered any explanation whatsoever for this omission. Of the 55 translations of Zechariah 12:10 I consulted,[22] all except 13 (including the NWT) directly indicated Yahweh as the subject pierced and some of the 13 that didn’t are contemporary English version given to paraphrasing as opposed to more literal, word-for-word translations and/or fo