• HOME
  • SERMONS
  • BLOG
  • ABOUT
  • CONTACT

Church of Christ

 
 
 
 
 

CUMBERNAULD

Graham McDonald, October 3 2020

Which Zechariah was Jesus discussing?

Jesus prophesies that just as religious leaders had persecuted God’s messengers in the Tanakh (Matthew 23:31-32), the last generation – those who would witness the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem in their lifetimes (Matthew 23:36; cf. Matthew 24:34) - would do the same to Jesus and the first Christians (Matthew 27:25; Acts 7:57-58; 9:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16).

In Matthew 23:35, Jesus then uses historical references to illustrate the consequences of hating righteousness. This one verse raises three significant questions:

1.     Why are the murders of Abel and Zechariah chosen?

2.     Which Zechariah did Jesus have in mind?

3.     Why are the Pharisees and Scribes guilty of Abel and Zechariah’s murders when they are far removed from the events?

Briefly, let us consider #1 & #3.

While the English Old Testament begins with Genesis and ends with Malachi, the Hebrew Tanakh begins with Genesis and ends with 2 Chronicles. Thus, the Tanakh has Abel murdered in Genesis 4:1-11, and the murder of Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22, making them the first and last martyrs of the Tanakh. As the Pharisees and Scribes will continue to pursue the persecution of righteousness in the coming days and years, they are as responsible for the murders of Abel and Zechariah as were Cain and King Joash. As an interesting aside, Jesus talks of “righteous blood” (v.35), whereas Judas Iscariot talks of “innocent blood” (Matthew 27:4) – though different words are used in the gospel[1]

We are left with the trickier question #2: which Zechariah?

Jesus identifies him as “Zechariah, the son of Berechiah” that clearly identifies the prophet from the 6th century BC (cf. Zechariah 1:1). However, there is no reason to believe that that Zechariah was ever martyred. If we consider the Hebrew Tanakh as an A-Z of murdering the righteous, then 2 Chronicles 24:20 speaks of “Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada”. Furthermore, Jesus speaks of Zechariah as being “murdered between the temple and the altar”. As Zechariah the son of Berechiah was a post-exilic prophet “…who lived some three hundred years later and whom Jewish tradition declared to have died peacefully at a great age (Liv. Pro. 15:6)”[2], there was no temple, and furthermore, there is no reason to know either way if the altar even survived the Babylonian invasion.

Was Jesus in error? Was the text adjusted? Was Matthew confused?

No. Instead, Davies and Allison offer as an explanation the Jewish tradition that “…merged two distinct persons…[3]” and “…conflated the prophet Zechariah with the son of Jehoiada…[4]

“…[G]iven that the death of the latter became the popular subject of legends…[5]”, is it possible that Jesus uses the conflation mechanism to link the martyred priest with the prophet as a sign of His own atoning ministry, impending persecution, and murder at the hands of those who murder the righteous? When one considers the focus of Zechariah’s prophecies, Jesus may well want the two men linked in the thoughts of the reader of Matthew 23:35.

_____________

[1] R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007), 880.

[2] R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007), 880.

[3] W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 319.

[4] W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 319.

[5] W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 319.

Thanks to Danylo Suprun for sharing their work on Unsplash.

Written by

Graham McDonald

Previous A Question About Genealogy
Next Sssh...don't tell anyone.