IN THE EIGHTH month of the second year of Darius, the word of the LORD came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berekiah, the son of Iddo:
2“The LORD was very angry with your forefathers. 3Therefore tell the people: This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Return to me,’ declares the LORD Almighty, ‘and I will return to you,’ says the LORD Almighty. 4Do not be like your forefathers, to whom the earlier prophets proclaimed: This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Turn from your evil ways and your evil practices.’ But they would not listen or pay attention to me, declares the LORD. 5Where are your forefathers now? And the prophets, do they live forever? 6But did not my words and my decrees, which I commanded my servants the prophets, overtake your forefathers?
“Then they repented and said, ‘The LORD Almighty has done to us what our ways and practices deserve, just as he determined to do.’ ”
Original Meaning
THE BOOK OF Zechariah begins in similar fashion to Haggai by providing the date of the prophetic utterance and the identity of the prophetic voice. This date, with the day of the month omitted, is not as specific as one finds in either Haggai (Hag. 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10, 18, 20) or the rest of Zechariah 1–8 (cf. Zech. 1:7; 7:1).1 This ambiguity makes it more difficult to identify a specific date for the prophetic utterance for it could be sometime in October–November 520 B.C.
This period follows an upheaval in the Persian empire. It was the time of transition from the reign of Cambyses (Cyrus’s son) to Darius I, which may have raised hopes among the Jews that now Israel might be able to take its place as the seat of God’s universal rule of the nations. But as the powerful Darius quelled rebellions across the empire, any such hopes were dashed. Into this context steps the prophet Zechariah, building on the work of Haggai, who had encouraged the people by revealing God’s plan to establish his rule (Hag. 2:6–7, 20–23) and identified rebuilding the temple as the initial phase of this plan.2 Zechariah takes restoration to another level by calling the people to covenant renewal alongside their rebuilding project.
The prophetic voice is not only placed in a temporal context, but also in a genealogical and sociological one. Zechariah is identified as the son of Berekiah, the son of Iddo. As indicated in our introduction (see Original Meaning section), Zechariah apparently comes from a priestly family and functions as temple prophet. His lineage opens a window into the setting of this initial pericope. Whereas some have linked this book, along with that of Haggai, to the dedication of the temple in 515 B.C., this does not do justice to its content.3 Although Zechariah’s message is connected to the rebuilding of the temple, this is not his main focus. He expands his message beyond the temple to the city as a whole and beyond physical rebuilding to moral renewal. He sets this tone from the outset in this initial section.
Rather than the dedication of the rebuilt temple, Zechariah 1–8 displays links to a tradition of prayer that arises out of the ashes of the exilic experience in response to the agenda of both Moses and Solomon.4 This kind of prayer, which exerts its influence on Jewish liturgical practice throughout the intertestamental period, has been tagged penitential prayer, defined in the following way: “a direct address to God in which an individual or group confesses sins and petitions for forgiveness. Frequently, the petitioner hopes that the prayer will also be the first step toward removing the problems facing the community or the petitioner.”5
Penitential prayer arises from the agenda for renewal presented in the blessings and curses of the Torah (Lev. 26; Deut. 28–30) and Solomon’s prayer of dedication for the temple (1 Kings 8). Deuteronomy 30 anticipates life for Israel after disobedience has resulted in the curse of exile. Moses presents a return to God as essential to begin the process of restoration. However, it is Leviticus 26 that provides the specific way in which one displays such a return to Yahweh: confession of one’s sin along with the sins of previous generations. Moreover, as Solomon anticipates life for future generations in exile, he sets an agenda for renewal that begins with confession (1 Kings 8:46–51).
This agenda for renewal is evident in the biblical penitential prayers of Ezra 9; Nehemiah 1 and 9; Psalm 6; and Daniel 9. Here one finds a group of prayers with similar vocabulary, motifs, and attendant actions (signs of lament and contrition like fasting, sackcloth, dust on the head, weeping).6 These prayers were seen as essential to bring an end to the Exile and to begin the restoration. This is particularly noticeable in Daniel 9, when Daniel realizes that the time is nearing for the end of the exilic seventy-year period. His penitential prayer is evidence that the community felt this was the first step in inaugurating the new age.
It is interesting that these prayers display a close affinity with the prophetic message presented in Zechariah 1:1–6; 7–8. In penitential prayers, one finds that the former generation (“fathers”; Ezra 9:7; Neh. 1:6; 9:2, 9, 16, 23, 32, 34, 36; Ps. 106:6, 7; Dan. 9:6, 8, 16), who did not listen to the prophets (“my servants”; Ezra 9:11; Neh. 9:26–30; Dan. 9:6, 10), are attacked, and the present generation responds by confessing their culpability (Ezra 9:6, 7, 13; Neh. 1:6 [2x]; 9:2, 29, 33, 37; Ps. 106:6, 43; Dan. 9:5, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 20) while affirming Yahweh’s justice (Ezra 9:15; Neh. 9:33; Dan. 9:7, 9, 15). In particular, phrases found in one of these prayers (Neh. 9) are limited almost exclusively to Zechariah 1:1–6; 7–8.7 In addition, Zechariah 7–8 comments on the exilic liturgical cycle of fasting, seeking to shape the agenda for this cycle. Fasting is also a common feature in the penitential prayer tradition.
By the time of Ezra and Nehemiah the penitential prayer tradition is clearly associated with the priests. Zechariah, arising out of the priestly context as a prophetic voice, is a good candidate to set the agenda for true repentance to accompany such liturgical acts of penitence. As a cultic prophet his messages may constitute God’s response to such acts of contrition and function as shapers of appropriate penitence to bring restoration for God’s people.8
An initial read through 1:2–6 may cause some confusion. In the short space of five verses, one finds multiple layers of quoted material: God speaks to Zechariah, telling him to declare to the present generation a message that includes a quotation of former prophets who were relaying a message from God to a former generation. Although difficult at points to follow, it reflects a rhetorical trend in later prophecy in which Yahweh is emphasized as the source of the prophetic speech, even if that is at the expense of flow.9
Verse 6b has presented some confusion. The NIV has placed this section in quotation marks, reflecting a common opinion that it refers to the former generation’s response to the prophets’ message. This is based on the fact that the section immediately preceding this phrase (1:6a) refers to the “forefathers” and the content of the speech is “our ways and practices.”10 In this view 1:6b is a continuation of the speech of Yahweh. Others see 1:6b as referring to the generation in Zechariah’s time, an interpretation produced by either emending the text in 1:6a to read “you” instead of “your fathers” or by reading the verbs in 1:6b as commands (“repent and say”) instead of statements (“they repented and said”).11
But one does not need to introduce emendations in the Hebrew text to identify 1:6b with Zechariah’s generation, for on rhetorical and form-critical grounds this is most certainly the case. (1) The point of the argument in 1:4–6a is that the former generation has been punished according to God’s righteous judgment delivered to them by the former prophets. To suggest that this generation “repented” moves in an opposite direction to the assertion of the message. The words of God “overtook” the rebellious generation, and that generation is now dead.
(2) The Hebrew penitential prayer tradition in the Babylonian and Persian periods reveals a view of sin that is intergenerational. Later generations regularly confess the sins of former generations (Ezra 9:7; Neh. 1:6; 9:2; Dan. 9:16).12 Zechariah 1:6b is thus a report of the reaction of the people to Zechariah’s initial message and picks up the narrative thread that begins in 1:1. It is similar to the flow of Haggai 1:1–15, which describes the prophetic message followed by a narrative overview of the response of the people.
Zechariah 1:2 sets the context for the prophetic message with a look to the past, expressing God’s anger (qaṣap) towards the former generation. This is explained in more detail in 1:4–6a and is a negative example for Zechariah’s contemporaries to avoid. Verse 3 then looks to the future, identifying the goal of this prophetic message, which has both a human (1:6b) and divine (1:7–2:13) element, using the same verb for both.
Detailed Analysis
GOD BEGINS HIS MESSAGE for the present generation by looking to the past. The text builds up Hebrew words to express the intensity of his anger toward the former generation.13 Yahweh’s anger is found at many points in the Old Testament.14 Its connection to God reveals that anger is not evil in and of itself. At its core, God’s anger reveals his passion that arises out of and protects his holy character. It is not surprising that the majority of references to that anger are found in the context of the covenant—in particular, the breaking of the covenant. The covenant is the vehicle of relationship between a holy God and his people. Its demands express his holy character and denote the standard required of the community who would relate to this holy God.
Expressions of God’s anger in the biblical text nearly always lead to consequences in the lives of humans, usually some form of disciplinary action. Closely related to the covenant relationship between God and his people, his anger often expresses his care for that relationship, whether that lies in disciplining his people or protecting them from foreign nations. In some cases it is used as a vehicle of divine disclosure to encourage the people or to warn those opposed to his purposes.
This use of an emotive relational term (qaṣap) to speak of his punitive destruction of the land and exile of the people reminds Zechariah’s generation of the core values that define the Exile and ultimately the restoration for which they long. God is a covenantal God, that is, a relational God, and he desires exclusivity and devotion in his relationship with his people. The past generation disregarded this relationship, even when Yahweh sent his messengers to remind them, as we will soon hear in 1:4–6a.
One does not usually expect such a statement at the outset of a speech. It appears on the surface to be overtly negative. However, the great paradox of the revelation of God’s wrath in the Old Testament is that it is often juxtaposed with and an opportunity for an expression of grace: “. . . the working out of God’s wrath is tempered by his grace and mercy. In fact, it is in the midst of wrath that God may reveal his mercy (Hab. 3:2), manifesting and bestowing his grace upon guilty sinners (Gen. 3:15).”15 It is significant that when the prophets use God’s anger, they often do so in the context of the shortness of that anger, promising mercy and assistance (Isa. 57:16; 64:4, 8; Zech. 1:15).16 Beginning with a reference to God’s anger with the former generation thus produces in the original readers the expectation that there will be a turn to something new, that the mercy of God is imminent.
This opportunity for a transformation in the relationship occurs as God calls Zechariah’s generation to turn to him, so that he may turn to them. Although this turning surely has moral implications as seen in 1:4 (“turn from your evil ways”), at the outset it is defined primarily in relational terms: “Return to me.”17 This reflects the agenda for renewal after exile laid out in Deuteronomy 30:2. Key to restoration after the discipline of the Exile is a return to Yahweh.
God promises to reciprocate by returning to them. Although Deuteronomy 30 does use the same verb (šwb, “return”) to describe God’s response to the people’s turning, it is used to speak of restoration of one’s fortunes rather than a return of God to his people as in Zechariah 1. With God as subject, this verb can refer to the restoration of something (as Deut. 30), to God’s turning from an intended purpose (usually relenting from anger; Num. 25:4; Deut. 13:17; Josh. 7:26; 2 Kings 23:26; Isa. 5:25; Jonah 3:9), to rewarding someone (2 Sam. 22:21, 25), or to returning with his presence to his people (Num. 10:36; Isa. 52:8; 63:17). It is this latter sense that Zechariah has in mind in Zechariah 1, as is typical elsewhere in this book (Zech. 1:16; 8:3). God offers to return with his presence to his people, the presence and glory that abandoned them in Ezekiel 10 and was promised to return in Ezekiel 43.
Having identified the expected goal of this prophetic message through the imperative “return,” the prophet fills out further the negative example of the former generations, which is to be avoided (Zech. 1:4–6a). The phrase “earlier prophets” refers to the prophets of the preexilic period in general but draws from Jeremiah in particular (cf. Jer. 7:3, 5; 11:8; 23:22; 25:5; 35:15).18 This summary of Jeremiah’s message places Zechariah securely in the same line as the earlier prophets, stressing continuity in Yahweh’s message to his people. At the same time it reminds the people that they must heed this message because the prophetic word had dire consequences.
This quotation defines further the nature of the “return” introduced in Zech. 1:3. This return, which is relational at its core, has an important ethical dimension. The actions of the people, described by using a regular word pair in Hebrew prophetic literature (“ways . . . practices [deeds]”) denotes their entire way of life (Jer. 4:18; 17:10; 32:19; Hos. 4:9; 12:3). These actions are not divorced from internal motivations of the heart as can be seen in Jeremiah’s combination of internal and external in Jeremiah 17:10: “I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.”
In the end, however, this call to ethical purity is kept in relational terms in Zechariah 1:4 as God sadly reports: “They would not listen or pay attention to me.” Additionally, the preposition accompanying the term “turn/return” (both šwb) is different. In 1:3 it was “to”; now in 1:4 it is “from.” This identifies a dual nature to the kind of “turning” that God is describing: It involves a turning from one thing and a turning to something else. In this case, the people are turning from their lifestyle of evil to their God in covenant relationship.
In 1:5 Zechariah uses a series of rhetorical questions to outline the result of ignoring the prophetic message. This technique forces the original audience to reflect deeply on the negative example of the former generation and on how they will respond to the same message of the prophets in their generation.
The point of the rhetorical questions is to contrast the nature of human existence with the nature of God’s word. The first two questions remind the people that human existence is ephemeral, for the disobedient generation had died, many punished with the curses brought on by their rebellion. Even the prophets who spoke God’s word display the passing nature of human existence. The one constant throughout the ages is God’s word, which must be heeded when it is delivered by the prophets. The word “overtake” (Hiphil of nśg) is used often in contexts describing a battle in which one army or person pursues another (1 Sam. 30:8; 2 Kings 25:5; Ps. 7:5; 18:37). This is drawn into the covenant context in Deuteronomy 28:2, 15, 45, where Yahweh defines the blessings and curses that are essential to the covenant relationship (cf. Jer. 42:16).
The nouns “words” and “decrees” (dabar/ḥoq) join a range of terms that refer in general to the requirements of the covenant made with Israel on Sinai (also miṣwah, torah, mišpaṭ). This range includes not only the specific requirements of individual commands but also the blessings and curses that provide accountability for the relationship. It is the covenant at Sinai that is picked up by the prophetic movement and used as the standard for God’s people (2 Kings 17:13).
Zechariah’s reflection on the past with the subtle yet powerful depiction of the consequences of disobedience has its desired effect on his generation in Zech. 1:6b. The translation “repented” in the NIV obscures the connection with the previous verses, for the Hebrew word underlying this translation (šwb) is the same one used in the imperatives in 1:3–4 (“return”). The prophet’s immediate audience reflects the agenda for renewal spelled out in Deuteronomy 30 in order to bring restoration.
The specifics of this “turning to God” in Zech. 1:6b are not revealed. Many have concluded that it refers to rebuilding the temple and is thus linked to the work of Haggai. But this does not appear to be the case.19 Zechariah’s view of “turning” is first of all relational (see 1:3), and when this is fleshed out further, it is ethical in nature (1:5; 7:9–10). Although his ministry is intimately related to the temple, it seems to build on the foundation of Haggai and move the agenda a step further, focusing more attention on the core covenant values of relationship and ethics.
The narrative description of the people’s response is followed by the declaration of the people. At first sight this may seem inappropriate as an expression of one’s “turning” to God. However, an important feature in the penitential prayer tradition so influential in this period is the affirmation that the hardship that has entered their lives is a result of the discipline of God and that this discipline is just. Note, for example, Nehemiah 9:33: “In all that has happened to us, you have been just; you have acted faithfully, while we did wrong” (cf. Dan. 9:7, 14; Ezra 9:15).
The people, in other words, agree that the covenant curses did overtake the people and that this was Yahweh’s purpose. This purpose is described by the Hebrew verb zmm (“determined”), which occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible with God as its subject, usually with the negative connotation of punishment (Jer. 4:28; 51:12; Lam. 2:17). However, Zechariah 8:14–15 reveals that Zechariah will proclaim the other side of God’s purpose. For a penitent people, God’s purposes are positive.
The people reflect another feature of the penitential prayer tradition when they refer to the sins of the past generations as their own sins (cf. Ezra 9; Neh. 1; 9; Dan. 9). They understand that their lives are intimately connected to this former generation that rebelled against God’s word and received his discipline. Renewal begins by turning away from the rebellious heritage that has preceded them. The agenda for this feature in the penitential prayer tradition can be traced to the words of Moses reflecting on the future rebellion of God’s people (Lev. 26:39–40), where he tells them that they will experience discipline because of their sins and those of former generations and that renewal begins with confessing their sins and those of former generations. Verse 6b, then, represents a response to this agenda of Moses in Leviticus 26, along with Deuteronomy 30, which emphasizes the need to return to God.
Zechariah 1:1–6 introduces us to the book of Zechariah as a whole. As with Haggai, it begins with a people who need renewal, and in like manner the people respond to the message. This does not mean that there are not issues remaining to be dealt with, but it does offer, at the outset, a positive picture of a community displaying attitudes and actions contrasting those of rebellious former generations. This fulfills the human side of the equation introduced in 1:3; the people display a return to relationship with Yahweh. Zechariah’s visions will introduce the divine dimension of this equation as we move from the earthly context with its classical prophetic forms into the otherworldly context of night visions.
Bridging Contexts
THE PROPHETIC MESSAGE of these six verses is a message for the church today. Assuredly it speaks to a specific generation at a particular period in the long history of the community of God. But this community has found its fulfillment in the church (see the introduction, Bridging Contexts section), a fact that makes this passage applicable to Christians today.
Repentance. The book of Zechariah begins with an invitation to the Persian period community to return to God. They are also reminded of the dire consequences that followed the rejection of this message in past generations. Zechariah’s generation takes the first step toward the resolution of the covenant crisis through a repentance characterized by confession of sin and affirmation of God’s justice.20
This same message of repentance will reverberate throughout the ongoing “exile” of God’s people in the centuries that follow as they long for the completion of the restoration program initiated in the early Persian period.21 It is not surprising, then, to find that this message of repentance launches the redemptive program of God in the Gospels, where it appears on the lips of the prophetic figure John the Baptist (Matt. 3:2, 8, 11; Mark 1:4, 5; Luke 3:3). He was the voice preparing the way for the return of Yahweh and the release of his people from exile. John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:4; Acts 13:24; 19:4). When Jesus underwent this baptism, he was not admitting sin but rather functioning as representative Israelite, symbolically confessing the sins of the nation and being cleansed by the waters.
This theme of repentance was also a feature in the preaching of Jesus (Matt. 4:17; 11:20–21; Luke 5:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10). When he sent his disciples out to preach and teach, the Gospel writer tells us that repentance was also their theme (Mark 6:12). This explains why the message of repentance was an essential component in the proclamation of the gospel by the early church (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 7:9–10; 12:21; 2 Tim. 2:25; Heb. 6:1, 6; 2 Peter 3:9; Rev. 2:5, 16, 21, 22; 3:3, 19; 9:20, 21; 16:9, 11).
Zechariah’s call to repentance is thus applicable to Christians today. It is a call to all humanity to return to the One who created us. It also reminds those who have entered into covenant relationship that they should live a life of repentance, turning to God in relationship and forsaking all affections and actions that threaten that relationship.
Generational issues. For Zechariah’s generation repentance was not an individual issue; it was corporate and generational. The Persian period community lived with the consequences of the disobedience of early generations, including loss of political independence, payment of taxes to a foreign overlord, and a significant decrease in population. Their repentance not only expresses their desire not to continue in the sinful tradition of past generations, but it is also on behalf of the offenses of a generation now long dead.
As already noted, this view of intergenerational guilt is founded on the instruction of Moses in connection with the discipline of the people through exile (see Lev. 26:39–42):22
Those of you who are left will waste away in the lands of their enemies because of their sins; also because of their fathers’ sins they will waste away.
But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers—their treachery against me and their hostility towards me, which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies—then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.
This same approach to guilt appears in 2 Kings 21:10–16, where Manasseh’s violation of God’s covenant through idolatry and injustice incites God’s judgment of his people, promising to destroy Jerusalem and exile his people. Even after Josiah’s national renewal, the writer of Kings reminds us: “Nevertheless, the LORD did not turn away from the heat of his fierce anger, which burned against Judah because of all that Manasseh had done to provoke him to anger” (2 Kings 23:26). Moreover, when Jehoiakim’s kingdom is attacked by raiders, the writer of Kings again comments: “Surely these things happened to Judah according to the LORD’s command, in order to remove them from his presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done” (24:3).
This approach to sin and guilt, with its cumulative and intergenerational character, seems to be at odds with another stream of Old Testament theology represented in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Chronicles. Ezekiel and Jeremiah both cite a proverb circulating among the people:
The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge. (Jer. 31:29; cf. Ezek. 18:2)
Simply put, the exiles are blaming a past generation for their present predicament.
Ezekiel counters this theological position first by stating that “the soul who sins is the one who will die” (Ezek. 18:4), and then by providing three scenarios that support this statement. These scenarios trace three generations of a family—the first righteous, the second wicked, and the third righteous. The righteous generations will live while the wicked one will die. Furthermore, he claims, “the son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him” (18:20). Although Jeremiah’s response is not as elaborate as Ezekiel’s, the message is the same: “Everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—his own teeth will be set on edge” (Jer. 31:30).
The books of Chronicles build on this view of sin and guilt and show how it was operative throughout the history of Judah. The principle is displayed most vividly in the Chronicler’s rendition of God’s word to Solomon at the dedication of the temple: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14). In Chronicles those who humbly pray, seek, and turn are those who prosper and are blessed; those who do not are cursed. These books show both the potential of each generation to start afresh and the role that penitence plays in this new beginning.23
How do we reconcile these two streams of Old Testament theology? One way of resolving them is to see in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Chronicles the foundation of a New Testament theology of individual responsibility and faith that transcends the approach of Leviticus and Kings. But is this the case?
A careful look at Leviticus 26 reveals how Moses declares that the people will waste away not only, yet not primarily, because of the sins of their fathers, but because of their own sins (26:39). It is obvious that they are in the position of exile because of the sins of a former generation (this is merely cause and effect), but the fact that they are remaining in exile is due to their own sins. Furthermore, he calls them to confess their sins before he calls them to confess the sins of their fathers (26:40).
Similarly, in 1–2 Kings the generations that were actually punished were never innocent themselves but rather culpable. Most likely the proverbial saying circulating among the people was actually a twisting of the kind of theology underlying Leviticus 26 and 1–2 Kings in order to divert attention from the disobedience of the present generation. In the end, then, we are still left with a view of sin and guilt that has intergenerational implications. But the cycle of guilt and sin can be broken within a generation through repentance and obedience.
This is a difficult concept for those of us who have grown up in the West to grasp, with our individualistic approach to life and spirituality. The penitential prayer tradition in the Old Testament suggests that we are situated within a broader community and that our repentance is not merely the exercise of isolated individuals, but rather of people positioned within a community with a heritage.
Anger of God. One cannot hide the emphasis on God’s anger in this passage. Clearly Yahweh is “very angry,” and this anger led to severe discipline of an earlier generation because they refused to respond. For many Christians this focus on God’s wrath is evidence of a serious disjuncture between the Old and New Testaments. In the former God is presented as a God of wrath and judgment, while in the latter he is a God of love and forgiveness. If this presupposition is left unchallenged, it will be difficult to appropriate Zechariah 1:1–6 for the church today.
One cannot, of course, avoid many passages in the Old Testament that highlight God’s wrath in the face of sin both inside and outside of Israel. But this is not the focus of the Old Testament witness. Interestingly, in the Old Testament the two main theological creedal traditions focus greatest attention on the gracious acts of God rather than his discipline.24
The majority of the instances of the narrative creed of Israel rehearse the redemptive acts of God (e.g., Deut. 6; 26; Josh. 24; 1 Sam. 12:8; Ps. 78; 105; 106; 135; 136; Neh. 9; Jer. 32; Ezek. 20), and the consistent element among these is the declaration of God’s grace in the Exodus and Conquest. And in the other theological creedal tradition in the Old Testament, the character creed of Israel (e.g., Ex. 34; Num. 14; Neh. 9; Ps. 86; 103; 111; 145; Joel 2; Jonah 4; Nah. 1), the main focus is on the grace of God—the One who is merciful, gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. Thus, it is a caricature to designate the Old Testament as the testament of wrath or judgment, for in it we find a revelation of God’s grace that lays the foundation for the New Testament theology of salvation.
Likewise, the New Testament is not bereft of wrath and judgment. A quick look at Christ’s teaching on the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, his seven woes against the teachers of the law and the Pharisees in Matthew 23, the revelation of the wrath of God in Romans 1, or the expectation of final judgement in Revelation reminds us of the great continuity between the two testaments.
The same God lies behind both Old and New Testaments, and this means that we must take seriously his revelation through Zechariah in Zech. 1:1–6. Indeed, the Incarnation has brought this teaching to a new level, but not to a level where it can be set aside. Rather, the response to this prophetic message is more attractive today because God has come in human flesh, and it is possible because of the coming of the Spirit to indwell the community of God.
Contemporary Significance
REPENTANCE AS RELATIONSHIP. There is little question that within my family Christmas was the most anticipated season of the year. With seven children the opening of gifts was a monumental enterprise and took a good portion of Christmas morning. Each year there was one gift that arrived from my grandparents who lived far away in New Jersey: a large box of salt water taffy. I’m sure it produced pleasant childhood memories for my mother who had grown up on the Jersey shore, but for her Canadian children, each with a sweet tooth, it was the gift that kept on giving well into the new year.
Of course, there was a rule associated with the consumption of this delicacy: We could only take one each day. By mid-January the box was empty of its contents, and soon everyone had forgotten about taffy. That was until one day I returned from grade school and was invited into my mother’s bedroom for a little chat. On her bed was a plastic bag filled with a multitude of wrappings that had once encased salt water taffy, obviously well beyond one child’s allotment.
I knew where mom had found the bag. Over the Christmas holidays I had eaten well beyond my ration, and in order to conceal my deceit I had stuffed them in a bag behind the drawer in my dresser. My mother, who was extremely tidy, had taken out that drawer to clean the dust and discovered my little hiding place.
As I raised my surprised eyes from the bag on the bed, they met the sad eyes of my mother. She asked me to sit down on the bed and then sadly told me that it wasn’t the salt water taffy that bothered her, but rather the fact that I had deceived her. My sensitive heart broke; I wept and asked her forgiveness. I have never forgotten this moment, because in it I think I came to the realization that sin is far more an issue of relationship than one of behavior. Surely my sinful actions could not be ignored, but they threatened my relationship with my mother, which was a far greater concern.
Biblical repentance is a matter of turning to as well as turning from, an abandonment into the arms of a God passionate for relationship. Biblical repentance is not just focused on behavioral patterns, but more importantly, more fundamentally on relational patterns: someone to love, not just some way to act. By reorienting our perspective on sin and repentance, we do not reduce but enhance the call to purity and holiness. Set in this covenantal context we are encouraged to live faithfully before God in all areas of life, not just in areas prescribed in our limited list of vices and virtues.
Repentance as entrance to and way of life. Its prominence in the message of the early church reveals that repentance is key at the outset of our Christian experience. As we declare the gospel, we must echo the message of Christ and the disciples, calling people to turn from their sin and turn to their Creator in faithful relationship. During the 1980s and continuing until today, a debate has raged within evangelicalism between those who accentuate the passive character of the faith relationship and those who emphasize the active character of this relationship.25 For the former, faith alone is required of the believer. The Christian life is initiated by a response to Christ as our Savior, through whom we receive forgiveness of our sin and an invitation to live in relationship with our Creator. Advocates of the active character of this relationship, by contrast, emphasize that Christ cannot be discovered as Savior without also being acknowledged as Lord, for Christ’s own call to his generation always emphasized the cost of discipleship.
This debate, however, polarized two essential themes in Christian theology that cannot and should not be treated as separate. Prophecies of the new covenant in Jeremiah and Ezekiel reveal to us the important principle that God did not abandon his purpose to create a holy nation who would walk in obedience. However, it is clear that this purpose would be realized through a renewed covenant by a great divine work that would transform his people (Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 36:24–32; 37:1–14, 24). In this way, the enduring message is a call to penitence and holiness, but this is accomplished only through the miraculous work of the Spirit of God made possible by the passion of Christ. Such a balance is expressed so beautifully by the apostle Paul: “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Phil. 2:12–13).
The apostle Paul makes clear that the message of repentance is not restricted to the initial phase in our Christian walk. As Gordon Smith has written, “true conversion leads us to be always conscious of sin and our need to turn from it. Repentance is a strand in our conversion that remains a continuing and vital element of the spiritual life. For without its abiding presence, there is no transformation.”26 With the proclivity to turn away from our Creator and to follow other gods, repentance is the constant turning to God in faithful relationship.
In light of this, Christian communities can encourage repentance among their adherents through communal rhythms of repentance. In reaction to medieval abuses in the penance system of the Roman Catholic church, Protestant traditions have generally rejected communal rites of penitence. Yet there seems to be evidence of the confession of sin to fellow believers in the New Testament (Acts 19:18; James 5:16; 1 John 1:8–10). This can happen in private settings with fellow believers, but also in public contexts as the community gathers together for worship. It means opportunity for oral expressions of penitence, but also time for private confession. An opportune time is prior to the reception of the Lord’s Supper.
Confession. The sin described in Zechariah 1:1–6 is linked to God’s discipline of his rebellious nation in 587 B.C. This context is important as we consider the action and declaration of the people in 1:6b. An important step in the life of the nation was the realization that the destruction of Jerusalem was justified in light of their rebellion against God.27 This justification of God here is an admission that the people’s behavior was indeed sinful and that God’s response was appropriate in light of the covenant.
Such a response to God’s discipline in our lives is an appropriate model for Christians today. Although not all trials and tribulations that we experience can be linked to sinful patterns in our lives, there are times when God disciplines us in order to purify our motives and actions.28 He does this because of his intense love for us—as the writer of Hebrews says, as a father loves his children (Heb. 12:1–17). When we become conscious of sin in our lives, the doorway to repentance is thus the admission that we have sinned and that God has been justified in his discipline in our lives. This may seem like a small step, but repentance is often thwarted by proud refusal to admit our rebellion—the key to the justification of God’s discipline. The prayer of Psalm 51:3–4 echoes the theme of Zechariah 1:6b:
For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.
Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak
and justified when you judge.
One can hardly miss the intimate link between the admission of sin and the justification of God through the words “so that” in Psalm 51:4.
In similar fashion the thanksgiving for forgiveness in Psalm 32:3–5 encourages acknowledgment of sin as essential to forgiveness:
When I kept silent,
my bones wasted away
through my groaning all day long.
For day and night
your hand was heavy upon me;
my strength was sapped
as in the heat of summer.
Then I acknowledged my sin to you
and did not cover up my iniquity.
I said, “I will confess
my transgressions to the LORD”—
and you forgave
the guilt of my sin.
A similar expression on the communal level can be found in the book of Lamentations.29 In the central composition in chapter 3, the speaker considers suffering as a result of sin and invites the community to examination, repentance, and confession:
Why should any living man complain
when punished for his sins?
Let us examine our ways and test them,
and let us return to the LORD.
Let us lift up our hearts and our hands
to God in heaven, and say:
“We have sinned and rebelled. . . .” (Lam. 3:39–42)
This is an important theological step forward in Israel’s liturgical responses to the Exile, which finds full expression in the many penitential prayers of the Persian period (Ezra 9; Neh. 1 and 9; Dan. 9). They provide patterns for communal expression of penitence for the church today (see Zech. 12:1–13:6).
Communal dimensions. Zechariah 1:1–6 highlights the communal dimension of repentance; that is, repentance is not just a matter between individuals and God but also between communities and God. The sin of his chosen community was far more than the accumulated rebellion of individuals; it had a sociological dimension that he sought to cleanse through exile. The community had strayed far from God, transgressing the call to love the Lord their God with all their hearts, souls, and minds and to love their neighbors as themselves. This was reflected in the social institutions of their community: the family and home, the priesthood and temple, and the monarchy and palace. Repentance and confession were thus not only for the individual members of this community but also for the community as a corporate and historical entity.
The response of the people encourages the church today to provide opportunity for repentance and confession for the community as a whole. Churches should build into their worship calendars not only times of celebration, but also seasons of reflection and repentance. I know one church that sets aside a week each year for sacred assembly in which they gather as a community for deep reflection, honest repentance, and vibrant celebration (using the model of Neh. 9). This creates a rhythm within the community that has an impact on the individual members, while forcing the community to deal with corporate issues.
Church leadership should take time to reflect on the ways the corporate ethos and practice of the church fall short of God’s ideal and may have damaged people or groups of people under their care. When a friend of mine assumed the leadership of a church, he soon discovered, when attempting to hire a new staff member, that there was serious dysfunction in the relationship between the pastors and elders of the church. Rather than forging ahead with the process, he wisely ceased the search and commenced prayerful reflection with the elders and staff on the causes of the dysfunction. This period of reflection led them to recognize key corporate issues that had developed in the church. The end result was public teaching on these issues and their resolution, thus providing a foundation for the church to grow and prosper.
Purpose of God. An important theme throughout Zech. 1:1–6 is the unyielding purpose of God. In the history of Israel God expressed this purpose initially through his prophetic words to his community and ultimately through his sovereign actions in history in the destruction and exile of Judah. The haunting questions of verse 6 remind us of God’s pursuit of his purposes as his words “overtake” the earlier generation. So also the confession of the people later in this verse is a reminder of his determination (“just as he determined to do”).
God’s words are true and faithful. When all human institutions fail, God’s words will not. His will cannot be thwarted. On the one side this is extremely comforting as we reflect on the many promises that God has given to his children. But there is another side as well. God will faithfully discipline his children as part of his program of grace in their lives. Grasping this theological truth encourages us to pursue him passionately.
Word of God. In this passage the message of God’s enduring word is key to repentance. The prophets were sent by God to call the people back to faithful relationship, and it is the words of the prophets that are rehearsed here for those people. Although the fathers and even the prophets themselves were not eternal, these words are not only eternal, according to Zechariah, but they are potent (“did not my words . . . overtake your forefathers?”). This reminds us of the importance of the Word of God to the rhythms of repentance.
The centrality of God’s Word for penitence is evident in the penitential prayer tradition in the Old Testament. In Nehemiah 9 the people read from “the Book of the Law of the LORD their God for a quarter of the day” before confessing their sins to God (Neh. 9:3). Their prayer is an anthology of quotations from this law book (9:5–37). Both Ezra and Nehemiah cry to God in penitence (Ezra 9; Neh. 1), and each cite God’s law in their prayer (Ezra 9:10–12; Neh. 1:8–9). Daniel’s penitential prayer results from his reading of “the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet” (Dan. 9:2).30
These examples show us the key role played by God’s Word in the rhythms of penitence within his community. They show us that repentance occurs as communities and individuals consistently encounter that Word in their lives. They also encourage us to provide opportunity for penitential response (among other responses, such as praise and thanksgiving) in our times of teaching and learning from the Word of God.