IN THE FOURTH year of King Darius, the word of the LORD came to Zechariah on the fourth day of the ninth month, the month of Kislev. 2The people of Bethel had sent Sharezer and Regem-Melech, together with their men, to entreat the LORD 3by asking the priests of the house of the LORD Almighty and the prophets, “Should I mourn and fast in the fifth month, as I have done for so many years?”
4Then the word of the LORD Almighty came to me: 5“Ask all the people of the land and the priests, ‘When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months for the past seventy years, was it really for me that you fasted? 6And when you were eating and drinking, were you not just feasting for yourselves? 7Are these not the words the LORD proclaimed through the earlier prophets when Jerusalem and its surrounding towns were at rest and prosperous, and the Negev and the western foothills were settled?’ ”
8And the word of the LORD came again to Zechariah: 9“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’
11“But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. 12They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the LORD Almighty was very angry.
13“ ‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the LORD Almighty. 14‘I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations, where they were strangers. The land was left so desolate behind them that no one could come or go. This is how they made the pleasant land desolate.’ ”
VERSE 1 SIGNALS the beginning of a new section in Zechariah and catapults the reader forward nearly two years from the date given in 1:7. The fourth day of the ninth month (Kislev) in the fourth year of Darius is December 7, 518 B.C. In terms of the temple rebuilding project this comes near the midpoint between the refounding ceremony (Hag. 2:10–23; cf. Zech. 4:6–10a) and its completion (Ezra 6:14). Although there are allusions to the project in the prophetic response,1 most likely it is the progress on rebuilding that motivates the delegation’s question. As elsewhere in Zechariah, the focus of attention transcends the temple effort.2
The appearance of a delegation is not surprising, considering they arrive in 518 B.C., sixty-nine years after the destruction of Jerusalem, close to the end of the seventy years of exile prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer. 29:10; cf. Zech. 7:3, 5). Since a rebuilt temple for the manifest presence of God is clearly a sign of the expected restoration, it is natural to ask a question that is related to the cessation of the fasting ritual that had marked their worship during the Exile. In other words, they are asking about more than just their fasting liturgy; they are also inquiring about the timing of redemptive history: “Is the Exile over?”3
A development on the imperial level provides further background to the inquiry and reply in chapters 7–8. One of Darius’s great gifts was his administrative abilities that provided lines of accountability. As already noted in the introduction (see Original Meaning section), Darius’s use of authorities loyal to the crown is evident in the work of Zerubbabel and Joshua. One example of his administrative prowess is his order for Egyptian laws to be codified, an order that occurred in the fourth year of his reign.4 Such legal and ritual codification on the Western frontier of the empire may explain the episode found in Zechariah 7–8. The temple authorities are to provide direction for this local legal code, and Zechariah is a key figure for discerning both ritual and moral law.
The historical encounter between prophet and people is encased in the form we now have in chapters 7–8 through a process of editing.5 We will focus our attention on the rhetoric of this final form. These two chapters are bracketed by two groups of people with foreign origins who “entreat the LORD” (7:2; 8:21). This literary technique (inclusion) binds the pieces as a unit to be read together. This suggests that for Zechariah, the original discussion about fasting is an opportunity for deeper reflection on God’s priorities and purposes for this community.
The prophet begins by addressing the intentions of their fasting liturgy since the fall of Jerusalem and subtly links them with the generation that originally invited God’s discipline (7:4–14). This functions as implicit motivation for them to break the patterns of the past. The prophet then moves to the future, promising God’s salvation of the remnant to fulfill their mission of blessing among the nations. This new era of salvation will be typified by feasting, not fasting, as Yahweh and his people renew covenant relationship, and Yahweh’s presence among his people will draw many nations to this renewed community. The inauguration of this new era is linked to God’s passion for his people and the obedience of his people to his covenant demands.
These two chapters have been composed with the earlier sections of Zechariah in mind. The opening pericope of Zechariah depicted the prophet echoing the message of the earlier prophets (1:2–6a) and the people responding to this message (1:6b). The next major section (1:7–6:15) presented God’s answer to this response, promising and enacting salvation and inviting the people to return and rebuild. In 1:7–6:15, however, there is evidence that not all is right in this community (ch. 5) and that there are outstanding issues.
These first two sections are introduced by historical superscriptions (1:1, 7) with a date formula. Zechariah 7:1, however, diverges from this pattern by affixing the narrative marker wayehi (untranslated in NIV; lit., “and it was”). This word is often used in Hebrew narrative to introduce another event in a particular story. In Zechariah this marker signals the next step in the story structured by the historical superscriptions. It appeared that the people’s response in 1:6b was a sign of repentance, but 7:1 reopens this issue and reveals that there is cause for concern, although hope for a truly penitent people. Zechariah 7–8 functions as an important transition from Restoration Already in chapters 1–6 to Restoration Not Yet in chapters 9–14.6
For the purposes of this commentary we will divide our discussion of chs. 7–8 into three parts (7:1–14; 8:1–13; 8:14–23). However, one must always keep in mind that the two chapters were designed as a complete unit.
Narrative Introduction and Question of Delegation—Entreating Yahweh (7:1–3)
ZECHARIAH 7:1 SETS this prophetic passage in the wider context of ancient Near Eastern history and, in particular, the redemptive history of Israel (see above). The use of Darius’s reign to orient the reader is a trend already encountered earlier in 1:1 and 7, but 7:1 has two unique characteristics. (1) The text adds the royal designation to Darius’s name as “King Darius” and in so doing reminds the reader that this is a particular era in redemptive history, one not defined by the Davidic dynasty but rather by a foreign hegemony.7
(2) The date formula is split in two with the year and day/month separated by the messenger formula.8 This awkward separation is likely related to the close relationship between the actions of Zechariah here and those of Jeremiah. Jeremiah 36 relates how Jeremiah sent Baruch to the temple on a day of fasting to warn the people about God’s impending judgment, with hopes that their repentance would avert God’s discipline. According to 36:1 this occurred in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the reading of the message took place in the ninth month (36:9, 22)—two different dates now appearing together in Zechariah 7:1. The significant allusions to the message of the earlier prophets and especially to Jeremiah and the rejection of this message by the former generation, all in the context of inappropriate fasting practices, point to an allusion in Zechariah to Jeremiah’s experience. Zechariah is being cast in the line of the earlier prophets as he echoes their message to his own generation.
The scene opens with some people from Bethel9 approaching the officials at the temple in Jerusalem for a decision on a liturgical matter. The appearance of this delegation of recently returned Jews10 has significance on both socio-historical as well as theological levels. It reveals the increasing role for Jerusalem as the religio-political center of the province of Yehud. But we should recall that Bethel was one of the two key religious centers of the former idolatrous northern kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 12:28–33). Now “Bethel, once in a position to send prophets of the Lord away (Amos 7:13), comes to Jerusalem to ask a question of the Lord.”11 The appearance of this delegation reveals the supremacy of Jerusalem as the central shrine of remnant Jewish faith. It may also suggest a future hope of a renewal of the united kingdom.
This delegation comes “to entreat the LORD” (lit., “to seek the face of Yahweh”), a phrase used in contexts where God’s people are seeking relief from difficult circumstances (Ex. 32:11; 1 Sam. 13:12; 1 Kings 13:6; 2 Kings 13:4; Ps. 119:58; Jer. 26:19; Dan. 9:13; Mal. 1:9). Its use in Daniel 9:13 is intriguing for there it is found in the context of a penitential liturgy similar to that alluded to in Zechariah 7. This shows that the question asked here is not a detached query for liturgical direction but a muted plea to God to bring an end to the period of discipline.
The question is posed to the “priests of the house of the LORD Almighty and the prophets,” the two sources of revelation in the temple precincts. The priests were commissioned to offer interpretations or rulings for specific situations based on the law12 and to provide access to direct revelation through the use of Urim and Thummim. The temple prophets provided direct revelation in oracular form.13 Because the priests are mentioned first and the question posed is binary in character (it can be answered by yes or no),14 presumably the priests are expected to provide the answer. Instead, the delegation receives a far more complicated answer that deepens the view of their role in inaugurating the new era of restoration (repentance) and expands their view of the eventual goal of this new era (nations).
The question posed in Zech. 7:3 concerns liturgical practice, an observation confirmed by the reference to the “fifth month” (a specific time) and “so many years” (a consistent routine). The words for “mourn” (bakah, “to weep, cry”) and “fast” (nazar, “to deny oneself”)15 are not the more technical liturgical terms used in Zechariah’s reply in 7:5 but probably reflect the vocabulary of the laity posing the question.16 Zechariah will clarify the character of this practice but will also expand the liturgical routine in view to include fasts during the fourth, seventh, and tenth months as well as the fifth (8:19). His reference to the “seventy years” in 7:5 (cf. “so many years” in 7:3) links this fasting routine to the fall of Judah in 587 B.C., and the citation of these particular months associates them with several crucial events surrounding this demise:17
Month | Event | Reference |
Tenth (588) | Beginning of siege of Jerusalem | 2 Kings 25:1; Jer. 39:1 |
Fourth (587) | Jerusalem walls breached;18 leadership fled | 2 Kings 25:3–7; Jer. 39:1–10; 52:6–11 |
Fifth | Jerusalem destroyed | 2 Kings 25:8–12; Jer. 52:12–16 |
Seventh | Assassination of Gedaliah19 | 2 Kings 25:25–26; Jer. 41:1–3 |
Throughout the Old Testament fasting rituals were regularly practiced but rarely legislated. Although fasting accompanied experiences of revelation from God in the case of Moses and Elijah (Ex. 34:28; 1 Kings 19:6–12), it was usually associated with circumstances of disaster often linked to sin and penitence (1 Sam. 7:6; 2 Sam. 12:16).20
Such fasting functioned not only as a penitential act representing the sorrow of the people for sin (Joel 2:12–13) but also as a communicative act, a cry to the God who could transform their circumstances (2 Sam. 12:16; Isa. 58:3–4, 9; Jer. 14:12). The cries used on such days are preserved in Lamentations, Psalms (Ps. 74; 79; 106), and the Persian period narrative books (Ezra 9; Neh. 1, 9; Dan. 9).21 These compositions were designed to bring an end to the period of God’s discipline of the nation, following the agenda for renewal expressed in Deuteronomy 30, Leviticus 26, and 1 Kings 8. Although there is no mention of fasting in these agenda texts, fasting and weeping were evidently acceptable outward expressions of the repentance and prayer demanded (see Ezra 9:3–5; 10:1; Neh. 1:4; 9:1; Dan. 9:3).
The role of the prophets on these days is difficult to discern from the Persian period narrative books. Although in the Babylonian period the prophet played an important role in fasting liturgies (Jer. 14–15),22 as the Persian period progressed that role seems to have been replaced by reading the Torah and perhaps also prophetic writings (Neh. 9).23 Zechariah’s strong reliance on the “earlier prophets” as he responds to the delegation’s question reveals a fasting liturgy in transition and shows that he is echoing the style of the fasting liturgy. This explains his moving the discussion to the level of intentions and ethical behavior as he seeks to recover the original intention of the fasting liturgy drawn from Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 30, and 1 Kings 8.
Zechariah’s Challenge of Fasting Ritual (7:4–6)
ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION originated with a delegation from Bethel, Zechariah’s speech includes all the people of Yehud and priests as well as all the fasting activity of the various communities (7:5; 8:19). He uses the more technical language. His term for fasting (ṣum, in contrast to nazar) is limited to ritual abstinence from food, while his term for lamentation (sapad, in contrast to bakah) denotes cries to God in moments of pain. This reveals the communicative nature of the fasting liturgy. It was designed to gain the ear of God and to express the repentance of the people. This is why Zechariah asks whether these liturgies were done for God—that is, as an act of true repentance to help build a relationship with God—or merely to free themselves from the circumstances of discipline. The Hebrew builds up terms to communicate the passion of this message from God (lit., “really fast . . . for me myself”).
Zechariah then asks a question directed at eating and drinking (Zech. 7:6). Some have seen here a reference to the festal schedule of Israel while others interpret it as terms for normal nourishment.24 The word pair “eating” (ʾakal) and “drinking” (šatah) is used elsewhere to refer both to normal nourishment (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 2:6, 28; 2 Sam. 19:36; Jer. 22:15) and to celebration (1 Kings 18:41; Isa. 22:13), but in these contexts it does not refer to the celebration of a regular feast. Alluding to Isaiah 22:13,25 Zechariah expands his message to include those who have not participated in the fasting rituals of the exilic period. There is no difference between those who fasted and those who feasted in this community, for neither display true repentance.
Review of God’s Word and Discipline in the Past (7:7–14)
IN 7:7 ZECHARIAH asks one final question as he turns to the past to show the dire consequences of rejecting true repentance. The phrase “the words the LORD proclaimed through the earlier prophets” refers to the amalgamation of phrases in verses 9–10 from Jeremiah, an “earlier prophet,” whose prophecies were vindicated by history (contra Hananiah, Jer. 28).
This earlier prophet declared these words during a time of the prosperity and peace in Jerusalem and its surrounding towns and the settlement of the Negev and the western foothills. The Negev was the southern desert region of Yehud, which formed the frontier of the kingdom and needed ideal conditions for civilization (military security, favorable climatic conditions). The western foothills, known as the Shephelah, were the range of hills and valleys lying between the central hill country at the center of Yehud and the coastal plain along the Mediterranean. The Shephelah was often contested between the Israelites and Philistines (here the stories of Samson and David and Goliath take place), and only when the kingdom of Judah reached the pinnacle of political success did it reach its full potential in terms of population and prosperity.
The contrast between this picture and the experience of the Persian period community, assumed in the language used (“when . . . at rest and prosperous”), is confirmed by archaeological evidence. In the early Persian period the size of Yehud was considerably smaller than even the reduced pre-fall size and did not include the Negev or the western foothills.26 This picture serves two purposes in the overall scope of Zechariah’s message in chapters 7–8. (1) It reveals the prosperity and peace that the former generation squandered in their refusal to repent (7:11–14), accentuating their folly. (2) It hints at the conditions the Persian period community should expect if they obey the voice of their prophet Zechariah (8:1–19).
In Zech. 7:8–10, Zechariah delivers afresh the message of the earlier prophets. The language reflects standard prophetic speech with a mixture of exhortations and prohibitions that are general, yet also focused on specific vulnerable groups in Israel.27 The vocabulary is drawn from Jeremiah 7:5–6 (cf. 22:3), where the prophet warns the people about relying too much on the temple in order to avoid God’s discipline (“This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!” 7:4). Rather, he calls them to “really change your ways and your actions” (7:5), lest God do to the temple what he did to Shiloh (7:12–15). This collection of vocabulary and motifs are striking, considering the temple reconstruction in Zechariah’s day.
The message identifies three positive exhortations followed by two prohibitions. These focus attention on the need for social justice as an expression of covenant faithfulness. To “administer true justice” is to hear legal disputes without bias. This word “true” means “faithful” in the Hebrew Bible and often linked to God’s character (Ex. 20:6; 34:6). Judging faithfully here speaks of judging with faithful adherence to God’s law no matter who stands before the court.28
One challenge is to administer true justice, but one can live according to the letter of the law and miss the spirit of the law. This is why the initial exhortation is balanced splendidly by the next two imperatives: “show mercy and compassion.” These two characteristics are regularly linked to the character of Yahweh and his people throughout the Old Testament (Ex. 34:6). The first characteristic is the Hebrew word ḥesed, which describes the loyalty expected of those who have entered into covenant. The word describes God’s loyalty to his covenant people and appears regularly in a phrase translated as “keeps covenant of love” (Ex. 20:6; 34:6–7). This characteristic of Yahweh is to be replicated in the life of God’s people (Hos. 6:6; 10:12; 12:6; Mic. 6:8; cf. 2 Sam. 9:1), even if they often failed to live up to this ideal (Hos. 4:1; 6:4).
This is also true of the second characteristic: “compassion” (raḥamim), which is often paired with ḥesed (Ps. 25:6; 40:11; 51:1; 69:16; Jer. 16:5; Hos. 2:21). It is regularly contrasted with the anger of God (Deut. 13:17; Ps. 77:9; Zech. 1:13–16), indicating the emotional character of this term. This character is displayed vividly in 1 Kings 3:26, where it describes the pity of a mother for her threatened child. The earlier prophets called the people to not only administer justice faithfully but to do it with the spirit of faithful loyalty and tender compassion.
These positive exhortations lay the foundation for the prohibitions that follow. The prophets were reflecting a strong theme in the Torah when they prohibited oppression of widows, the fatherless, and aliens. Deuteronomy especially emphasizes God’s protection of these types of people (Deut. 10:18) while calling God’s covenant nation to the same standard (14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:17–21; 26:12, 13; 27:19). The prophets criticize the people for breaking this covenant value (Isa. 1:17, 23; 10:2; Jer. 7:6; 22:3; Ezek. 22:7).29 Zechariah expands the list to include the category “poor,” which usually appears in tandem with “needy” (ʾebyon; e.g., Deut. 15:11) and sometimes with “alien” (e.g., Ezek. 22:29) and widows and fatherless (e.g., Isa. 10:2).
Only in Zechariah, however, do we find the combination of all four categories. This final term “poor” makes it clear that the three other categories are examples of those who were vulnerable within ancient Near Eastern societies, stripped of their socioeconomic safety net. For the fatherless and widow this was caused by the absence of the male provider; for the alien it was the absence of clan protection and connection.30 These allusions to vulnerable members of the Jewish community, however, are more than just images. Socio-historical research on Zechariah’s community reveals economic vulnerability for many within the society.31
While the first prohibition makes specific the general tone of the exhortations, the second one focuses on internal threats to covenant justice and loyalty: “In your hearts do not think evil of each other.” The Old Testament law was ultimately concerned with the internal life of the people (see Bridging Contexts section of Zech. 5:1–4). “Think” suggests plotting, scheming, and planning. The word “evil” is not a moral term but rather means disaster or harm (cf. Ezek. 38:10), which can have moral implications.32 Because of the context in which this appears, this scheming is to be seen in the context of legal disputes and oppression, something made more clear when it reappears in Zechariah 8:16–17 in connection with giving false testimony (cf. Ps. 10:2; Mic. 2:1).33 The earlier prophets prohibited even the plotting of harm against one another.
This summary of the teaching of the earlier prophets is not merely a recitation of past facts but is designed to speak to Zechariah’s own generation (Zech. 7:7, “Are these not the words . . . ?”). Here he defines more clearly his concern over the fasting liturgies of his contemporaries and why they are not “for me” (Yahweh). Fasting activity that is supposed to be based on the agenda of Israel’s law is missing the main purpose, namely, the renewal of covenant relationship with Yahweh through repentance from the ways of the past.
Having completed his recitation of the themes of the earlier prophets, Zechariah now returns to the main story line. He describes the earlier generation’s refusal to respond to the message of the prophets by heaping up several images. (1) He uses an image drawn from animal husbandry (“they stubbornly . . . turned their backs”), in which an animal refuses the yoke (cf. “to stiffen the neck” in Neh. 9:29). (2) Next he depicts their refusal through the image of self-imposed deafness of hearing (“stopped their ears”).34 (3) Finally, he matches two external images with an internal image of the “heart,” seen as the seat of the affections, which is turned to a hard stone (“flint”).35 These images depict the willful refusal to listen to God’s words communicated through the law and the voices of the earlier prophets (2 Kings 17:13–15), whose words were also direct revelation from Yahweh since they were delivered “by his Spirit.”36
This willful rejection has resulted in God’s becoming “angry” toward that generation (Zech. 7:12), and his wrath spread quickly from affection to action (7:13–14). The Hebrew text of 7:13 appears at first sight awkward because it begins: “ ‘When he called, they did not listen, so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the LORD Almighty.” This awkwardness is part of Zechariah’s style as he moves from description to quotation.37 God refuses to listen to those who refuse to listen to him.
But God’s discipline involved more than just cutting off communication; he “scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations.” This use of storm imagery is typical of prophetic speech and is used often in connection with God’s wrath.38 The image here is most likely of chaff being blown by the wind (cf. Isa. 40:24; 41:16; Hos. 13:3) as the people are scattered among “all the nations.”39 These nations are described here as those “which they did not know” (NIV, “where they were strangers”), a phrase that appears regularly in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah to refer to gods, people, or land, but never to nations (Deut. 13:2; 28:33; Jer. 7:9; 15:14; 16:13; 17:4; 22:28). The phrase highlights the vulnerability of life for those living among the nations.40
Thus, God’s anger was first expressed through his refusal to listen to his people and then through scattering them among the nations. In the first action he reversed the covenant intimacy promised to Abraham in Genesis 17, so essential to Israel’s experience with Yahweh (Gen. 17:7).41 In the second action he dealt a blow to the seed promised to Abraham who were now scattered as chaff to the nations (17:4–6). In his final action he caused the desolation of the land (17:8), which was so thoroughly ruined that normal human activity could not be pursued, an image typical of the prophetic curses (Jer. 9:9–11; Ezek. 36:33–36).
With the final sentence of the historical overview, Zechariah returns his audience to the point of departure by reminding them of the positive conditions of the earlier generation (cf. Zech. 7:7 and 7:14), while juxtaposing this with the devastation they experienced.42 He makes it clear that although God has been the subject of the verbs describing discipline, the people were ultimately responsible for this by their active refusal to listen.
In summary, in this section Zechariah offers not only the message of the earlier prophets but also a history lesson in the consequences of ignoring or rejecting God’s message (cf. Zech. 1:1–6). In doing this, the prophet is not on a tangent unrelated to the original question of the delegation. This review of Israel’s story began with his question: “Are these not the words . . .” which were related directly to his concern over the fasting practices during the past seventy years. Furthermore, the language of 7:4–14 displays links to the penitential prayer liturgy of the exilic period43 and to the vocabulary and style of the prayer in Nehemiah 9. As already noted in our comments on Zechariah 7:1–3, there is evidence of a strong tradition of penitential prayer underlying this passage.44 Zechariah is doing something more here than merely reciting the story of Israel and laying the foundation for his challenge to his own generation. He is using the very liturgy from the days of fasting in order to drive home his point about the people’s lack of repentance.
Bridging Contexts
AT FIRST GLANCE, the relevance of Zechariah 7–8 seems distant to the modern reader. How does the fasting liturgy of a particular generation in the early Persian period relate to us today? But approaching the Old Testament as Christians means situating ourselves in the larger story of God’s redemption. The early Christian community placed the work of Jesus clearly in this broader context (see, e.g., Matt. 1:1). On one level the promises and stories of the Old Testament were interpreted on a redemptive-historical level. They were essential components of the larger story line that ultimately wound its way via the cross into the experience of their community. All Old Testament events and truth were celebrated as part of their heritage, essential to the progress of God’s redemption.
On another level, however, these promises and stories were interpreted on a redemptive-experiential level. If these promises and stories were essential to the flow of God’s redemption, they contain values helpful for a later community in the same plot to emulate. Highlighting the redemptive-historical character of revelation celebrates the linear progress of redemption; these events and values are unique to their respective age. Emphasizing the redemptive-experiential character of revelation promotes the cyclical recurrence of redemption; these events and values have ongoing significance in every age.45
Fasting, feasting, exile, and restoration. The exilic fasting liturgy emerges prominently as the backdrop to the original prophetic message in Zechariah 7–8. Zechariah looks to an age when fasting will be turned to feasting, from mourning to celebration. This could be interpreted literally to mean that there will be specific feasts attached to the fasts observed in each of the months during the exilic period. More likely, however, Zechariah is using the language of the change from fast to feast to point to an approaching restoration. This restoration will make fasting a thing of the past as the community celebrates God’s redemptive work. It will begin with the Jewish community but will ultimately extend to the nations.
As one reads the various biblical books describing the early Persian period, one may get the impression that the restoration has become a reality. Some scholars attack the optimism expressed in Ezra and Nehemiah as mere ideological rhetoric shaped by the powerful priestly caste in the Jewish community. However, a closer look at these two books shows that their authors were dissatisfied with the progress made during the early Persian period. Ezra 1–6 and Nehemiah 1–7 celebrate the great physical accomplishments of two different communities during this early period. Nevertheless, both depictions are followed by clear evidence of ongoing struggle for the kind of purity demanded in the law and the prophets (Ezra 7–10; Neh. 8–13). Likewise, Haggai portrays a community struggling with lethargy. Zechariah 1–6 has shown a community still struggling with sin, and this trend continues in Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi.
Daniel 9 uses the experience of Daniel in the early Persian period to explain the enduring nature of the Exile. Utilizing a penitential prayer liturgy typical of the exilic period,46 Daniel cries to God after reading about the seventy-year period of exile in Jeremiah. The fasting liturgy was used as a way to bring an end to the Exile. When he is finished praying, however, an angel approaches him and explains that the length of the Exile has been extended to seventy times seven (9:24) because of the need for cleansing of sin among the people.
Although the date of this account in Daniel 9 is disputed, there is no question that it matches other depictions of the early Persian period. Exile was an ongoing reality because of the sin of the people. This is matched by the practice of intertestamental Judaism in continuing to observe fasts and extending them to twice a week.47 Thus, the picture of exile and restoration in the Old Testament can be described as “already/not yet.” On the one side, exile has come to an end and restoration has begun (2 Chron. 36; Ezra 1); on the other side, there is a not yet side as aspects of exile continue (Dan. 9).
The link between fasting/feasting and exile/restoration in Zechariah 7–8 helps us to understand Christ’s allusions to fasting and feasting in the Gospels. His discouragement of fasting is an implicit signal to the Jewish community that the promised restoration was at hand (Matt. 9:15–16; Mark 2:19–22; Luke 5:34–37). As N. T. Wright has so ably asserted:
Fasting in this period was not, for Jews, simply an ascetic discipline, part of the general practice of piety. It had to do with Israel’s present condition: she was still in exile. More specifically, it had to do with commemorating the destruction of the Temple. Zechariah’s promise that the fasts would turn into feasts could come true only when YHWH restored the fortunes of his people.
. . . In other words, the party is in full swing, and nobody wants glum faces at a wedding. This is not a piece of “teaching” about “religion” or “morality”; nor is it the dissemination of a timeless truth. It is a claim about eschatology. The time is fulfilled; the exile is over; the bridegroom is at hand.48
Similarly, when Christ envisions Gentiles joining the Hebrew feast (Matt. 8:11–12), he is alluding to a similar vision in Zechariah 1–8 (2:11; 8:8, 18–23). These intertextual connections remind us that restoration was ultimately fulfilled in the community established by Christ, the church. On one level the cross signaled the end of the Exile and the beginning of restoration, and in an ironic twist this restoration was sealed by the destruction of Jerusalem. On another level, however, the language of exile and restoration continues to inform early Christian theology, revealing a sense of restoration already and not yet. Jesus foreshadows this in his allusions to fasting/feasting, when he predicts that “the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast” (Matt. 9:15). In one sense we have experienced the fulfillment of Zechariah 7–8, and yet we still long for its completion when Christ’s kingdom is fully realized.
This lays the foundation for ascertaining the role of fasting and feasting within the Christian community. Although we have experienced forgiveness through the cross, we still battle with sin in our lives and communities, and so Christ encouraged fasting as an activity appropriate between his first and second coming (Matt. 9:14–15; Mark 2:19–20; cf. Matt. 6:16–18).49 It is true that all special days are fulfilled in Christ through whom we have perpetual access to God (Col. 2:16–17), but this does not disqualify the use of special days as part of the rhythm of our experience with God. But they can become as misguided as the fasts of Zechariah 7–8 and thus need to be challenged constantly by the values communicated by Zechariah.
Prophetic witness. In Zechariah 7 Zechariah points back to the witness of the “earlier prophets.” He cites their words and rehearses their example as those who proclaimed the word faithfully in their generation. So closely were their words identified with the words of God that Zechariah quotes God as saying, “When I called” (7:13).
In my final year of college in Canada I was separated from my girlfriend (now my wife) by over two thousand miles. In those days with no nickel-a-minute plans available, telephone calls were a financial burden. So an older couple in my church offered to help me make a free phone call. In their backyard was a four-story high amateur radio tower through which they could receive and send radio transmissions across the country. Of course, their radio could not reach my girlfriend’s home north of New York City directly; in any case, she did not have an amateur radio. But they did contact a friend one province away, who rebounded the signal to another friend a province away and repeated this process from province to province and state to state until the signal reached a radio operator within local calling range of my girlfriend. After fifteen minutes of repeating the signal, I was able to speak directly to my girlfriend. Of course, the level of privacy was less than desirable for two young people in love, but it was free!
As we read and teach this passage, we replicate the process that linked my girlfriend and me through the amateur radio network, but now linking God’s Word to us today. As we seek to communicate the message of 7:1–14, we are proclaiming a message that itself was a message based on another generation of prophets (so similarly 1:1–6; see there). The core values of the prophetic message, although historically removed from Zechariah’s audience and even further removed from our audience today, were and continue to be relevant for our communities of faith. As discussed in detail in the Bridging Contexts section of our introduction, the New Testament is witness to this “rebounding” practice of taking up the prophetic message and passing it on as relevant for the church, whether in reference to God’s future actions or in reference to God’s call to obedience. As Zechariah did not restrict the words of the earlier prophets to a generation long gone, so we cannot afford to restrict Zechariah’s words to an ancient context.
Hardness of heart. These words of the prophets (both earlier and in Zechariah) are important to us because we share much in common with the ancient community of faith. It is true that in and through Jesus Christ we have received far greater resources for the life of faith, but this does not free us from the call to purity and obedience, it only enhances that call.
If we were honest, the example of the earlier generation that had “refused to pay attention . . . stubbornly . . . turned their backs and stopped up their ears . . . made their hearts as hard as flint and . . . not listen to the law or the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets” (Zech. 7:11–12) is not far from our own condition, both individually and corporately. This is why the apostle Paul, reflecting on an even earlier Israelite generation (the desert generation), which he calls “our forefathers” (1 Cor. 10:1), carefully delineates their behavior for the church in Corinth. He knows that the Christian community is capable of replicating these patterns from Israelite history. Therefore, Paul writes to them:
Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. . . . These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! (1 Cor. 10:6, 11–12)
As Zechariah’s generation needed to be reminded of the example of an earlier generation of God’s people, so we must remember these examples and learn from their error. As we invite the Spirit to work in our lives, we must place ourselves within earshot of the teaching of God’s Word and cultivate spiritual sensitivity to its instruction. This means daily and weekly connection with that Word, but also finding accountability within a community whose hearts are likewise in tune with the Spirit’s teaching. This, however, must be done in the context of grace, reciting the faithful love of a God who desires to see us stand firm. Just as Zechariah rehearses the victory that God will bring (Zech. 8), so Paul rehearses God’s faithfulness:
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it. (1 Cor. 10:13)
The challenges of the generation described by Zechariah are the challenges we face today (“common”). Zechariah 7 calls us to listen to God and change our ways.
Contemporary Significance
THE ANCIENT MESSAGE of Zechariah is as relevant to our experience today as it was to those who first heard and read these words. Underlying the practice of fasting was the desire to bring an end to the discipline of God (exile) and to experience his blessing (restoration). God had made it clear, however, that what was required was not just the uttering of penitential prayer to him, but rather confession, which was an expression of true repentance in affection and action. Zechariah, however, observes that his contemporaries were fasting “for themselves,” not “for God.” They were interested in experiencing the blessing of restoration and had set up religious practices to express this interest, but they were not interested in the priorities of Yahweh.
Religious experience. In the same way today we see a generation clambering for religious experience. The other day as I was paying for my gas, the attendant mistakenly gave me too much change. I noticed the error and immediately pointed it out, handing back the extra coins. On my right was a young man in his twenties with the latest hairstyle and fashion. As I extended my hand with the overpayment, he suddenly blurted out: “Cool . . . Karma, man, Karma.” As I walked away, I thought how much more spiritually aware is our world today than in times past. In one way, this has been a positive development, providing an opportunity for religious dialogue that was difficult in previous generations. But there are dangers that parallel the experience of Zechariah’s audience. Religious experiences can become merely extensions of one’s own personal agenda. Through them we can create God in our own image, a god from whom we accept promise and salvation but not warning and discipline.
It is instructive that the revelation of Jesus Christ and his grace was preceded by the prophetic call to repentance through John the Baptist. God was serious about a covenant relationship with his people, a relationship based on extending his grace to a sinful people. But such grace required the sincere repentance of his people. This principle is reflected in the hope of Zechariah 7–8 and needs to inform our own experience with God today.
God demands fidelity in relationship and calls us to repentance as he extends grace to us through Christ’s death and resurrection. As people are invited to respond to God in faith, they should also reflect deeply over the condition of their hearts and lives, renouncing their past life of sin even as they embrace the Spirit’s enabling new life in Christ. In a rush to get people to pray a prayer of faith to God, Christians often present a truncated view of conversion, that is, one that involves a turning to God but not a turning from sin.
Earlier streams of theology are instructive for recovering a fuller view of repentance. For instance, in the Orthodox tradition repentance endures as a key element in conversion, as evident in the renunciation of evil at baptism when the priest, after turning the catechumen to the west, asks: “Do you renounce Satan, and all his angels, and all his works, and all his services, and all his pride?” Then, turning to the candidate to the east (a physical motion that is to parallel an inner turn), asks: “Do you unite yourself to Christ? And do you believe in Him?”50
In similar fashion the Puritans emphasized repentance in conversion.51 They considered both repentance and faith as a grace given by God, though both were necessary for salvation. Repentance involved awareness that sin was offensive to God and deserved his judgment, included sorrow for and hatred of sin, entailed turning from sin to God with the intention to be obedient to God’s law, and was intermingled with faith resulting in an obedient lifestyle. Like faith, repentance was a lifelong process.
These two traditions challenge us to incorporate a penitential aspect into our presentations of the gospel as well as into communal initiation rites, especially that of baptism. The doctrine of repentance needs to be an enduring theme in the theology of the church, especially in light of the present religious mood in our generation.
Christian liturgy. The greater emphasis on religious experience in society in general can also be discerned in the church, especially with the stress today on recovering the “missing jewel,” that is, worship.52 Many will immediately relate Zechariah’s challenge to those Christian traditions that utilize liturgical texts and calendars.
I remember an experience I had with this kind of tradition. I noticed it first on my eldest son, David, because he was sitting next to me at the dining room table. It was 1996, and we had moved into our “new” 1913 home in an older part of our city. Our boys were enjoying their new life at the local school, which happened to be Catholic. It was March, and I noticed a dirty spot on his forehead and on his brother Stephen’s forehead. Now my boys are hardly known for their ability to stay out of the mud, but what were the chances that they both had filth in the same spot! As my mouth opened to ask the question, the answer was already forming in my mind, but the question was ventured: “Boys, what is the gray smudge on your forehead?”
“Dad!? [in a tone that sounded like I didn’t know how to pronounce the latest rock star’s name properly] . . . it’s ash from the priest . . . it’s Ash Wednesday.”
“Of course,” I thought to myself, “Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent,” as the boys meticulously explained to me the significance of this day and liturgical season in the life of their school. Although probably unique among their classmates, my two boys were able to fully grasp this liturgical rhythm and even appropriate it into their lives. For them it was not dead ritual but part of a living faith experience.
This made me reflect on our own tradition and the rituals and traditions that we have. It reminded me that all traditions have a consistent structure to their expressions of worship whether it is admitted or not.53 This passage is a sincere call to the Christian community to ensure that the rhythms of worship expression fulfill their intended purpose rather than becoming avenues for hypocrisy. This was one of Christ’s greatest concerns with his own generation as he highlighted hypocrisy in the worship practices of his contemporaries (e.g., Matt. 6:2–8, 16–18).
As a student I once worked alongside a respected pastor and church growth advisor, helping churches revision their ministries. I remember well an inspiring worship experience in a church in the Canadian Maritimes. Well before the present worship revolution in the evangelical church, this church had made worship top priority in their experience together as a community of faith. Whether they were meeting in a small group in a home, in a prayer meeting in the basement of the church, or in a Sunday service in the sanctuary, worship was not merely “preliminaries” to the main event of preaching, but rather the priority.
While visiting the church I stayed in the home of a young couple with preschool children and enjoyed their perspective on God’s work in their church. As I sat with them in the Sunday service, I noticed the children lifting their hands in praise as we sang the songs. At Sunday dinner in their home I asked them about the exuberance of praise in their church and noted the expression of their children. The father then told me that a few months prior he had noticed his young son raising his hands in worship. At home the son proudly told his father that he had “worshiped” God today at church. When his father asked him what he meant by “worshiped,” the son informed him that he had lifted his hands in the air. The father proceeded to teach his son that it was not the lifting up the hands that was worship, but rather the attitude of the heart that lay behind the action of the body.
By this I am not playing down the physicality of worship. We are holistic beings of spirit-matter and our worship will be expressed through physical forms that involve our mouths, ears, eyes, noses, and bodies. But these physical forms have meaning because of the reality of our relationship with God. When we separate the physical form from genuine covenant relationship with God, we fall into the hypocrisy that Zechariah and Christ denounced in their generations.
Fasting. Zechariah focuses attention on the practice of fasting. At a recent community gathering in my neighborhood I had a fascinating conversation with a family about their practice of fasting for both physical and spiritual health. Through some resources they mentioned, I have discovered that fasting plays an important role in contemporary holistic medicine and spirituality, a movement that has forced us to take seriously that human beings are spirit-matter.54
This discovery has forced me to consider seriously the place of fasting within biblical theology and Christian practice.55 Although Jesus did not require his disciples to fast when he was with them, he did practice fasting himself (Matt. 4:2; Luke 4:2) and said that fasting would be appropriate (Matt. 6:16–18), especially when he was no longer with them (Mark 2:18–20). In the early church fasting is linked to model piety (Acts 6:1; 2 Cor. 6:4–5; 1 Tim. 5:5) and is mentioned in conjunction with commissioning (Acts 13:1–3; 14:23).56 There are warnings against excessive asceticism in Colossians 2:18, 23, a practice related to the worship of angels.
The Didache (Zech. 8:1) mentions a twice-weekly Christian fast, while Eusebius in the third century describes a fast on Good Friday, a practice that later was expanded to the annual Lenten fast of penitence. In light of this evidence of fasting in the early church, why is fasting not a core spiritual activity within many Christian traditions?
Although there may be many reasons, one important factor is surely the Reformation reaction to medieval asceticism. Martin Luther’s study of the Scriptures led him to revisit the doctrines of salvation, especially the biblical theme of justification by grace through faith, and reconsider the doctrine of penitence, especially the medieval practice of selling indulgences and practicing self-abuse. The medieval church had made repentance an economic enterprise. People paid for absolution from their sins and the sins of the deceased. In addition, people were required to fulfill certain physical rites in return for forgiveness of sins. Luther tells the story of his trip to Rome in which he climbed the steps of the Vatican on his knees as a penitential rite. Fasting was an essential ritual related to the forgiveness of sins and was thus rejected by Protestant churches.
But in light of the New Testament witness, one should not reject fasting as an important covenant rhythm for the community of God. This rhythm must be founded on a biblical doctrine of salvation and repentance; that is, this practice is not an act that earns our forgiveness; rather, it expresses our hearts’ passion for God and mourning for our sins, affords an opportunity to deepen our relationship with God, and affirms our dependence on him for all our needs.
Zechariah’s message not only encourages fasting but is designed to shape our fasting experience. He reminds us that fasting is not primarily a self-centered enterprise, focused on improving human health or spiritual well-being. Although fasting can have this effect on us as Christians, Zechariah reminds us of the divine priorities in fasting: an opportunity to examine our relationship with God, reorient us to his priorities, renounce practices that do not conform to kingdom priorities, and embrace those that do. When I served as a leader in my college, a close friend and fellow leader encouraged me to join him on the first Monday of each month to fast and pray over the meal times together. Although a difficult discipline for me, as the year progressed I looked forward to these moments of reorientation in my life as a Christian and as a leader.
For some, the practice of fasting is part of the weekly or monthly rhythm of their lives, taking time over a lunch period to talk with God rather than eat. For those in churches that practice the church calendar, the season of Lent is an annual opportunity to practice fasting. Such fasting can be guided by a passage such as Nehemiah 9–10, where the people read the Scriptures, expressed praise, rehearsed their salvation, confessed their sins, expressed their needs, and finally renewed covenant. This can be a powerful pattern for God’s people individually and corporately.
Social justice. For my Dad and his three small kids, it was a last-minute run to the local grocery store for milk, but little did he know the lasting impact this trip would have on his children.57 The store was only four blocks from our home, and as the four of us boarded our 1965 Ford Falcon, milk in father’s hand, we knew the route like the back of our hands: right on Pasqua, left on 4th, right on Connaught.
As we neared the intersection of 4th and Pasqua, however, we all noticed something askew. Lying on the ground between the sidewalk and the curb was a heap of humanity. As we came closer, we could see it was an old man who had fallen in a drunken stupor and lay in a pool of whisky produced by his smashed bottle. My father stopped the car, hopped out, and before our young eyes, helped him to his feet, opened the front door of the car, placed him in the car, and, with our eyes as wide as saucers, delivered the man to his home several blocks away. The picture that endures in my mind’s eye is that of my father’s arm around this sorry man, helping him up the front walk of his home. A simple act of mercy, compassion in a crisis of need, it was a demonstration of Christian faith in deed, the kind of spirituality Zechariah sought in his day.
The inappropriate nature of the fasting rituals in Zechariah’s day was linked to specific ethical demands, a trend discernible in Isaiah 58 as well. In his article on fasting, Mark Buchanan challenges us to see the link between fasting and social justice on a physical level: “The fast God chooses teaches us to have God’s heart for the hungry, the oppressed, the naked, the homeless. When we taste a little brokenness ourselves, we have a greater sense of urgency to repair for others what is broken.”58
In addressing fasting liturgies, Zechariah attacked the social injustice of his day as seen in the abuse of the court systems and the lack of care and compassion for the poor.59 As we have seen, his concerns echo prophetic voices from the past, who saw the same trends within the preexilic community of God, trends that led ultimately to the Exile and the destruction of Jerusalem. This prophetic witness was based firmly on the covenant foundation in the law.
The New Testament witness continued this call to social justice. Interestingly, Jesus echoed Zechariah’s concern when he attacked the teachers of the law for making long prayers for show while abusing widows (Mark 12:38–40; Luke 20:45–47). He also communicated a sincere concern for the poor (Luke 7:22; 12:32–34; 18:22). The early church took seriously their responsibility for those in need (Acts 6:1; 9:36; 10:4, 31; 24:17; Rom. 15:26; 1 Cor. 13:3; Gal. 2:10; 1 Tim. 5:3–16). James was deeply concerned about abuses in his day, highlighting exploitation of the poor and preference for the rich as worthy of judgment. He also defines “true religion” as the care for orphans and widows (James 1:27).
Although there are some prophets within today’s church crying in the wilderness about the social implications of the gospel, the vast majority of white evangelical churches are indifferent to these issues.60 There are several reasons for the loss of this social emphasis. (1) Sociologically, the location (or relocation) of these churches within the suburban sprawl of North America has led to a distancing from those with the greatest financial and sociological needs. In this the churches represent the general cultural trend of separation of classes.
(2) Politically, there is a strong tendency, especially in North America, to argue for separation between church and state. In the culture at large and in the church as well, this has come to mean that the church should have no voice in the affairs of the culture, a view that was not the original intention of those who first crafted the American constitution.
(3) Theologically, evangelical churches have often distanced themselves from the so-called “mainline” churches, which embraced a social theology considered theologically suspect.61 Many evangelicals stripped spirituality of its sociological dimension and in doing so violated a major biblical-theological emphasis.62 In addition, many have reacted against a more culturally engaging postmillennial triumphalism that seeks to establish a Christian nation.63
Zechariah called his generation to practice justice with one another. This implies faithful living and speaking with our fellow human beings without favoritism and with compassion. It also means caring for the rights and needs of those with fewer resources than we enjoy. But we cannot restrict this to the individual level. God calls his people both as individuals and as communities to become champions of justice within society. This means taking seriously God’s call to become lawyers, social workers, psychologists, and teachers in order to communicate and enact his justice in society as a whole. It also means a realignment of the priorities of the church and possibly also the organization of the church to allow a broader sociological agenda to be addressed. We must show the love of God to our society through our actions as well as words.
As I ministered to teens in Toronto, I began to study the community in which our church was located. I discovered that there was not a single ghetto in the inner-city core (as one often finds in American cities), but rather pockets of low-income housing spread throughout the city. The provincial government had built large housing projects within blocks of middle and upper class single family dwellings. Thus, in my church and local schools the poor attended classes with the rich. In light of this, several members of my youth staff caught a vision for ministry in these areas, running floor hockey clubs to get teens off the streets, events at which they would share the gospel. These activities opened doors for the gospel with these youth.
However, although this was a good start in displaying sensitivity to the community in which we had been placed, if I were to relive that period of ministry, I would like to take our calling to these communities to a deeper level. I encountered an example of this through one of the couples with whom I attended seminary, Steve and Mary Smallman. They have spent the last decade ministering in an inner-city community in Baltimore, Maryland.64 Rather than plant a church that offers only spiritual instruction and worship experiences, New Song Community Church has initiated ministries that seek to transform their community in all dimensions of life. There are ministries focused on economic (attracting business, securing loans, creating jobs in their community), infrastructure (building/renovating homes), medical (pediatric and adult health care), educational (after school enrichment, preschool), as well as spiritual development.
Such holistic ministry is as valid in inner-city contexts as it is in the suburban areas, where family and vocational crises are also at issue. For some suburban ministries it will mean finding outlets for ministry in poorer neighborhoods. For some inner-city ministries it will mean remaining and revisioning ministry in light of changing demographics in their community.65
This kind of response to the message of Zechariah is important. We need to reach out and communicate the gospel to our communities through word and deed. But the church can also play a role in addressing the roots of dysfunction within our society. As I have already noted, this is not an easy task within societies that celebrate the separation of church and state. A recent news report on charities in Canada highlighted the difficulty of addressing issues of social justice within North American society. According to the report Canadian charities are not allowed to spend more than 10 percent of their budgets on “advocacy,” that is, on initiatives designed to address the political system and root causes of the problem their charity is seeking to address. They may spend as much money as they wish on servicing the problem, but are limited in advocating change to the system. If they violate this rule, they risk losing their charitable status.
But if, as Zechariah 7–8 indicates and the New Testament confirms, the gospel has a social dimension, the church must be willing to take risks within their societies, even if that means endangering tax-deductible status. It also means that the church should encourage Christians to participate both in the political process as well as the agencies that carry out government policies in the public sector.
The impact that this kind of holistic approach to ministry can have on a community, culture, and society will be considered in more detail in the commentary on 8:14–23. At this point, however, Zechariah has highlighted God’s priority on social justice and the serious consequences of ignoring his call. The urgency of this message to his generation is communicated through his review of the experience of the earlier generation. Their refusal to listen to God’s call resulted in the desolation of the “pleasant land.” This land of peace and prosperity was destroyed by disobedience, and this would be the perpetual state of Zechariah’s generation unless they transcended their ancestors’ example. The church needs to hear this message with the same urgency today. We threaten to make the pleasant land desolate, whether that means our lives, our families, our churches, or our communities.