Sea

Any king or high priest of Israel was properly termed a messiah. What we consider "Messiah" is a special messiah -- the branch of David -- who was expected to restore the Dynasty to its former glory and beyond.

Zech 6 only identifies one of the two messiahs as the Messiah.

Loomis

Then that means there could have been two messiahs in Zechariah. You said so yourself.

Nope. We do not. “Special” our ass.

What we consider a "messiah" is what the author of Zechariah considered a "messiah". He is the guy who gets to decide what a "messiah" is.

These are the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.

And when we consider related texts written by other authors we do the same thing: What did the various authors say and why did they say it?

Forget about what the Believers believe. Read the text. Stay focused. It’s all about the text. Did you read this? Or are you too busy being certain that your current opinion deserves respect?

Sea

The word "messiah" has taken on specialized meaning. An English example of semantic narrowing is the change from "meat" referring to any kind of food to only indicating animal products.

"Messiah" used to be relatively mundane. Any king or high priest of Israel was a "messiah." Since then, it has come to mean a particular person who will restore the good ol' days dignity of David's throne and mark the beginning of the "messianic age".

Unless the Old Testament context supports this narrower meaning, it is misleading to pretend there's no distinction. If a sufficiently early English text described a man simply as "eating meat", it would be misleading to quote it as proof he wasn't a vegetarian.

The Zechariah passage speaks of two messiahs in the old, general sense. The context only supports identifying one of them as a messiah in the current sense. Simply talking about "two messiahs" is equivocation. Same as if I started calling all food "meat" and acted like it was other people's problem if they were too ignorant to realize apples are included.

Loomis

I agree that the Zechariah passage speaks of two messiahs. But what impact does the ‘current sense of the messiah’ have on what the author was trying to say when he wrote it?

I agree that Zerubbabel was taken out of the crowning part. But I just don’t see anything that suggests a "special" messiah. I see just the opposite.

Consider the second half of verse 6:13.

And he shall receive power, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and there shall be a priest on his right hand, and a peaceable counsel shall be between them both.

Indeed, he will build the temple of the Lord, and he will be clothed in splendor, sitting as king on his throne. Moreover, there will be a priest with him on his throne and they will see eye to eye on everything.

It looks to me like they were on a level playing field. Because if they weren’t then what difference would it make if they see eye-to-eye on everything?

Also consider 4:14

These are the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.

There is no mention of a "special " messiah; there is no indication of a hierarchy.

Also consider 4:3

… two olive-trees above it, one on the right of the bowl, and one on the left.

The two olive trees are are equal. One on the left, and one on the right.

So where does Zechariah say anything about a “special” messiah?

Sea

It impacts how we describe it today. If I say "Zechariah spoke of two messiahs", it will be understood as two messiahs in the special sense the term has come to mean.

The priest is subordinate but in harmony with the king.

I suspect the harmony is mentioned because kings had a history of not being in line with religious expectations. This king was going to be righteous and listen to his priest.

One sitting at the other's "right hand" does establish hierarchy. Still, this wouldn't qualify Zerubbabel as being the Messiah as opposed to a messiah. Verse 12 does that by identifying the king as the Branch. This is the designation the Old Testament uses for what we now call the Messiah. See Isaiah 11:1, Jer 23:5, and Zech 3:8.

Basically:

OT "messiah" means any king or high priest.
OT "branch" means Messiah.

If these writers were still alive, maybe they would wonder why we insist on using the wrong term.

Oh I don't doubt that messianic ideas were understood in a variety of ways later on. I'm just saying Zechariah itself only speaks of one Messiah.