Q393 : Is the False Shepherd of Zechariah 11 the False Prophet of Revelation 13?

We are aware from Scripture (Zech.11:4-14) Israel has rejected her Worthy Shepherd, for the worthless one and God will send Israel a false messiah from which God has said, “For behold, I will raise up a shepherd in the land who will neither care for the lost, nor seek the young, nor heal the broken, nor sustain the healthy, but he will devour the flesh of the choice sheep and tear off their hooves.”

43 “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.” (John 5:43)

God Himself is going to raise up a worthless shepherd from the land. I don’t hear many teachers/theologians who have clearly made that line of distinction between the false prophet [shepherd?] whom God will raise from the land of Israel [Zec. 11] and the beast who comes up out of the sea [Rev. 13:1] and as it stands, many teachers equate these two characters as being one and the same: the beast of Revelation 13:1.

Let’s compare notes with that of Revelation 13:1.

1 And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten crowns, and on his heads were blasphemous names. (Rev. 13:1)

We are have been made aware of the fact that this entity comes out from the Gentile nation.

Dr. Andy Woods give an interesting view and I quote; “What is the sea? The sea, many times in the Bible, represents the great mass of humanity, the great mass of the human race. Isaiah 57:21 says “But the wicked are like the tossing sea, for it cannot be quiet, and its waters toss up refuse and mud.” That’s how God looks at human history with the Gentiles in control. It’s a bunch of “refuse and mud.” It’s just constant churning. And these four beasts are coming up out of the sea.”

Now that that’s been established, why isn’t there a distinction made and that is, the false prophet or false shepherd of Revelation 13:11 is the same false shepherd that God said He would raise from the land (Zechariah 11:15-17) — the land of Israel?

I’ve found only one man from my studies who has made that distinction and he was Merrill F. Unger and I am quoting from his book; ‘Zechariah Prophet of Messiah’s Glory’ page 202-203, “Moreover, the raising up of the shepherd in the land can only refer to Israel’s land contextually, but does not rule out the foolish shepherd’s sway far beyond this limited sphere.”

I believe that this false or foolish shepherd will lure ‘the many’ of Daniel 9:27 to the beast who will come from among the Gentiles, but I believe he will demand that all men must worship the beast. Otherwise, why would Israel readily follow a Gentile as her Messiah?

A393 : by Tony Garland

Thanks for your question.

Why isn’t there a distinction made . . . [that] the false prophet or false shepherd of Revelation 13:11 is the same false shepherd that God said He would raise from the land (Zechariah 11:15-17) — the land of Israel?

One reason those who study prophecy don’t automatically equate the foolish shepherd of Zechariah 11:15 with the false prophet of Revelation 13:11 has to do with what is said about their relation to the land.

Most would agree with Unger — that “the land” mentioned in Zechariah 11:15, in context, speaks of the land of Israel. They would also agree that the false prophet is said to arise “out of the earth (or land)” which could also speak of the land of Israel, in distinction with the sea — the origin of the Beast in Revelation 13:1.

But what is said about each figure in relation to the land differs. The foolish shepherd is raised up in the land. whereas the false prophet comes up out of the land. The two passages employ different propositions with differing spacial emphasis.

In Zechariah, the phrase is בָּאָרְץ [bāʾār^eṣ], which probably has in view the area of his influence or operation. He is not said to be out of the land — as is said of the prophet in Revelation 13:11, which most understand to be describing his (non-Gentile) origin. The prepositions ba (Hebrew) and ek (Greek) cannot simply be equated because they are connected with land — even the same land.

In other OT passages which speak of beasts or kings arising from the sea (Daniel 7:3, 17) we find the preposition מִן [min] — not בָ [ḇā].

I’ve found only one man from my studies who has made that distinction and he was Merrill F. Unger.

Dr. Unger is a very valuable source. I don’t have the same reference you cite, but when I checked what he had to say about the foolish shepherd in another of his works, I found a very similar quote, but with an important addition:

The Prophecy of the Character of the False Shepherd. 11:16. The false shepherd (the Antichrist) is described in salient contrast to the true Shepherd (the Christ). Israel’s rejection of the Good Shepherd was judicially punished by their accepting the bad shepherd (John 5:43). . . . the LORD . . . will raise up a shepherd in the land (Israel’s land contextually, but the circumstance does not rule out the foolish [wicked] shepherd’s sway far beyond that limited sphere).”¹

It seems that Unger did not equate the foolish shepherd of Zechariah 11 with the false prophet of Revelation 13:11 (the second beast) after all.

In conclusion

Although we can’t be dogmatic that the foolish shepherd (Zec. 11:15) is the Antichrist (Rev. 13:1) and not the false prophet (Rev. 13:11), many people see Christ’s claim to be the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14) to be an intentional contrast with Zechariah’s false shepherd.