THEN THE ANGEL who was speaking to me came forward and said to me, “Look up and see what this is that is appearing.”
6I asked, “What is it?”
He replied, “It is a measuring basket.” And he added, “This is the iniquity of the people throughout the land.”
7Then the cover of lead was raised, and there in the basket sat a woman! 8He said, “This is wickedness,” and he pushed her back into the basket and pushed the lead cover down over its mouth.
9Then I looked up—and there before me were two women, with the wind in their wings! They had wings like those of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between heaven and earth.
10“Where are they taking the basket?” I asked the angel who was speaking to me.
11He replied, “To the country of Babylonia to build a house for it. When it is ready, the basket will be set there in its place.”
Original Meaning
INTERPRETATIONS OF THIS vision can be classified into two basic groups. (1) Some see the vision as continuing the emphasis on social injustice begun in Zech. 5:1–4.1 This view relies heavily on the presence of several Hebrew words in this vision: ʾepah (“measuring basket,” vv. 6, 7, 9, 10), kikkar (“cover,” v. 7), and ʾeben (“cover,” v. 8), all connected to a standard measuring unit (cf. Lev. 19:36; Deut. 25:14, 15; Prov. 20:10; Ezek. 45:10–11; Amos 8:5; and esp. Mic. 6:11).2
(2) Others see this vision as taking the concern over sin introduced by the previous vision (5:1–4) in a new direction by confronting illicit worship practices.3 The strongest evidence for this view lies in the latter half of the vision as the basket is transported to Babylon to a “house” where it rests “in its place.” Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the word “place” (mekunah) refers exclusively to the base of a holy object in a sanctuary (e.g., 1 Kings 7:28; Ezra 3:3). This usage suggests that the “house” in Babylon is a “temple” (the word for both is the same, bayit) and that the basket is destined for sacred use.4
Earlier features in the vision also suit this approach. The “woman” in the basket is connected via other Scripture passages to idolatry—for example, as the idol of a goddess seated on a throne (Asherah, Ishtar/Astarte), as Queen Athaliah the idolatrous monarch, who is called “wicked” (2 Chron. 24:7), or as foreign wives from exile who had introduced idolatry into the Judean community (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13:23–27). “Wickedness” (rišʿah), a term used to identify this woman, is connected to the idolatry of surrounding nations in Deuteronomy 9:4–5 (cf. 8:19–20) and Ezekiel 5:6–7 (cf. 5:9, 11).5 Finally, ʾepah, so important to the first approach, can refer to a basket used to transport an offering of grain (Lev. 5:11; cf. 6:13).6
The accumulated evidence for the second approach tips the argument in its favor. Whereas the vision in Zech. 5:1–4 confronted covenant infidelity in human relationships, the second vision confronts covenant infidelity in the people’s relationship with God. Yahweh is a jealous God, who will not tolerate any rival.
This vision does portray some uniqueness in structure. It proceeds through stages rather than being a single revelation of a scene at the outset, which is then discussed by the angel and the recipient. In the first stage the prophet sees a measuring basket, which is then interpreted (5:5–6). In the second stage the lead cover is raised to reveal a woman, who is then identified (5:7–8). Finally, two winged women appear, and their significance is revealed (5:9–11).
This vision brings attention back to an important theme of the first half of the vision series. The focus there was to offer comfort to the Jewish community through declaring God’s punishment of Babylon (1:18–21) and the release of exiles (2:6–13). Just prior to the launch of God’s punishment on Babylon and release of the exiles in the final vision of 6:1–8, the present vision reminds the audience that those who return must not bring Babylonian idolatry with them.
A Measuring Basket (5:5–6)
THE MAIN CHARACTERS in the vision are the “angel who was speaking with me” and “me” (presumably Zechariah)—the same characters interacting in the previous vision. Although it is difficult to discern why this angel is “going out” (yaṣaʾ; NIV “came forward”), it most likely is related to the fact that the vision of chapter 4 (also of ch. 3) took place inside the sanctuary and now the “going out” signals a move to an outside venue.7 The prophet follows the angel and is commanded to observe a new scene: “a measuring basket” exiting the sanctuary.
As in the other visions, this one takes an ordinary object to create an extraordinary scene. The word for “measuring basket” (ʾepah) denotes a commonly accepted measurement (“ephah”) that in time came to denote a container that holds this amount.8 The presence of such a basket in a temple context is not odd, for such containers were used to weigh grain offerings.9
The angel identifies this container as “the iniquity of the people in all the land.” Scholars have hotly debated this phrase because of considerable divergence between the Hebrew text and the ancient versions. The Hebrew text, followed by the Latin Vulgate, reads here: “This is their eye”; the LXX and Syriac versions read: “This is their iniquity.” This variety can be traced to the difference of a single consonant in Hebrew (e Hebrew/Latin readiynm versus e Hebrew/Latin readiwnm). The Hebrew/Latin reading must be interpreted figuratively—as a reference to omniscience (like the eye of God in Zech. 4:10, so here evil has an eye),10 to a hostile attitude (their hostile eye),11 to appearance (Lev. 13:5; Num. 11:7),12 or to visibility,13 all of which stretch this Hebrew word beyond its usual semantic range. The LXX and Syriac reading (“their iniquity”) fits the context and explains best the use of the possessive ending “their,” a reference to the inhabitants of the earth.14
Although it is difficult to determine whether the Hebrew word ʿawon means sinful acts (“iniquity”) or their consequences (“guilt” or “punishment”), here it likely refers to “guilt.” This distinguishes clearly the basket (guilt) and its content (a woman called wickedness, rišʿah),15 a distinction seen in the only other passage that uses these two words (Ezek. 18:20, 27). This guilt is cosmic in scope, for it is “in all the land,” or better, “throughout all the earth” (cf. Zech. 1:10, 11; 4:10, 14; 5:3; 6:5, 7). The idolatrous practices of Babylon that have spread throughout the world by their military might have stained God’s people, land, and sanctuary.
A Woman in the Basket (5:7–8)
THE SECOND PHASE of the vision reveals the contents of the basket. The prophet sees a “talent weight of lead” (NIV, “cover of lead”), described in verse 8 as a “stone of lead” (NIV, “lead cover”), perched atop the basket. While this object might denote the regular lid of a container,16 it most likely denotes a weight taken from the temple scales, a helpful object to keep the woman from escaping.17 The raising of the weight allows the prophet to peer inside the basket to see a woman in a sitting position.
The angel identifies her as “wickedness” (rišʿah), a term used elsewhere of the idolatry of the nations around Israel (see above). The use of this term along with a female image in a sitting position destined for a pedestal in a sanctuary (see below) indicates that this woman is a goddess or her idol, representing the idolatrous worship of the people.18 As noted already, the woman is distinguished from the basket, just as the guilt of sin is distinguished from the act of sin. Both the guilt and its act must be sent to Babylon, which explains the angel’s cautious treatment of this woman, lest she (the activity) escape and incur further guilt.19
Two Winged Women (5:9–11)
THE “ONE” WOMAN in the basket is clearly distinguished from the “two women” who now enter the vision. These women possess wings, a feature that matches the iconography of the ancient Near East, where therioanthropic beings (part human, part animal) are featured in depictions of deity.20
Two features of these wings are noted. (1) There is “wind in their wings” (cf. 2 Sam. 22:11; Ps. 18:10; Hos. 4:19). The first two references are interesting because they occur parallel to God’s mounting cherubim for a ride, suggesting that this idiom may have been connected to the flight of heavenly beings. Another option is that this idiom pictures the women being carried along effortlessly by wind currents. The association between “wind” and God occurs throughout the Old Testament, suggesting that God endorses this action (cf. Gen. 8:1; Ex. 15:10).21
(2) These wings are like the wings “of a stork.” The choice of the stork is appropriate for several reasons. The stork possessed large and powerful wings, able to propel her to great heights—a necessary prerequisite for beings intent on transporting this basket to a far off land. For the Israelites, the stork manifested a migratory pattern north (Jer. 8:7), a route matching the intended flight of the basket to Babylon (see comments on Zech. 2:6).22 Moreover, the stork’s designation as unclean in Israelite law (Lev. 11:19; Deut. 14:18) qualifies this bird’s wings for the unseemly task of conveying “guilt” and “wickedness” to their appropriate site.23
Such wings enable the women to elevate the measuring basket “between earth and heaven.” “The heavens and the earth” is a common word pair in Hebrew, an idiom that normally denotes the cosmos as a whole (e.g., Gen. 1:1). Here we find the preposition “between” (ben) and the word order “earth . . . heaven” (see also 1 Chron. 21:16; Ezek. 8:3). In all three cases this region appears to designate a neutral zone where heavenly beings are able to carry out their mission unimpeded by earth’s inhabitants. The use of this idiom in Zechariah 5:9 may allude intentionally to Ezekiel’s experience in Ezekiel 8, where he is transported from Babylon (Ezek. 1:3) to the temple in Jerusalem. There he observes the worship of many gods, with particular mention of the Babylonian god Tammuz (8:14).24 God declares that such acts “will drive me far from my sanctuary” (8:6). For Yahweh to return to this temple, as Zechariah’s vision complex promises (Zech. 1:16), such abominations must be removed from the temple.
Zechariah finally asks the obvious question: “Where are they taking the measuring basket?” The angel replies that the destination is (lit.) “the land of Shinar” (NIV, “the country of Babylonia”). This is the ancient name for the Mesopotamian plain, which included the cities of Babel, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh (Gen. 10:10). The allusion to this region here must be connected to the role of Babylon in the destruction and exile of Jerusalem and Judah (see Zech. 1:18–21; 2:6–13).25
But the particular phrase “land of Shinar” has another connotation as well. It was in Shinar that the infamous episode of the “tower of Babel” was set (Gen. 11), a story that expresses the aspiration of humanity to invade God’s heavenly abode and overthrow his rule.26 The people hoped that by building their city and their tower they would prevent their dispersion over the earth, a scheme in direct violation of God’s creation mandate (Gen. 1:28). The “tower” in this city was most likely a temple structure, akin to the ziggurats that dotted the landscape of Mesopotamia. Zechariah 5:11 appears to be playing off the tower of Babel tradition. As in Genesis 11, it refers to the land of Shinar and to a temple structure (“a house”) that will be built. In contrast, God, who once spread the rebellious inhabitants of Shinar out to fill the earth, now sends back to this center of wickedness the practices that had infested God’s holy temple.
The resting place of the measuring basket with its dangerous contents is a temple built specially for it. As mentioned at the outset, the word used for “its place” is a term used elsewhere only when describing religious objects in the temple in Jerusalem, whether it stands for the bronze basins in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:27, 29) that were transported off to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:13, 16//Jer. 52:17, 20; Jer. 27:19) or the refounded altar in the Second Temple (Ezra 3:3).27 Because it contains an idol, we can assume that this new structure will function as a shrine for the worship of the goddess contained therein.
REJECTION OF IDOLATRY. As in Zechariah 5, Zechariah confronts the issue of sin within the returned Jewish community. The focus now moves to the foundational relationship in Old Testament faith: the relationship between God and his people, protected by the first three commandments in the Decalogue and summarized splendidly by Moses in Deuteronomy 6:4–5: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” Idolatry threatens the love relationship between God and his people and is thus rejected by Moses and all who follow his lead.
The worship of other gods is not a new development in the tradition of Israel. A review of Israel’s redemptive story in Joshua 24 discloses that the two great migrations in Israel’s tradition (Abraham, Exodus) were preceded by idol worship (24:3, 14) and anticipates that the nation would face constant temptation to such worship (24:14–27).
This is, indeed, true in the story of the nation. Idols and the gods and goddesses they represent become distractions for the people from the earliest days of life in Canaan (e.g., Judg. 8:22–27; 17–18) through the periods of the united (1 Kings 11:1–8) and divided kingdoms (12:28–33). In 2 Kings 17 idolatry is listed as the major reason for God’s judgment on the kingdoms, a point confirmed by the prophets (e.g., Hos. 3:1, 4; 4:12; Amos 2:4; Mic. 1:6–7). These concerns are clear as well from the archaeological record. Although Yahweh is preeminent in the worship of Israel, other gods and goddesses are mentioned.28 In particular, Yahweh is linked with Asherah, who functions as his divine consort.29
The fall of the northern kingdom to the Assyrians resulted in an exchange of peoples between Palestine and Mesopotamia. The narrator in 2 Kings 17:24–41 emphasizes that the worship of other gods accompanied these new immigrants, resulting in a syncretistic fusion of Mesopotamian and Yahwistic religion. In the closing days of the southern kingdom, Jeremiah regularly confronted idolatrous practices drawn from both Canaanite (Jer. 7:9; 11:13, 17; 32:29, 35) and Mesopotamian sources (7:18; 44:17–25).30
Jeremiah reflects on the crisis in Israelite religion that accompanied the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of its sanctuary. That event produced three major religious reactions.31 Some related this disaster to an offense of the god(s) of Canaan and thus sought to remedy this by worshiping them (Jer. 44; Ezek. 8). Others accepted the religion of the conquering Babylonians, acknowledging that their gods were victorious over Yahweh (Ezek. 8; 20:32; Dan. 3; 7). Finally, a number interpreted the disaster as divine judgment from Yahweh and encouraged faithful worship of him alone (Lam. 3:40; cf. 2 Kings 17).
None of these strategies gained the upper hand across the Jewish communities. The archaeological record shows that at least the exilic community in Egypt incorporated gods from the Egyptian and Canaanite pantheon into their worship practices.32 However, the record in Palestine suggests that in the Persian period the Jews in Yehud were successful in eradicating idolatry from their ranks. How long this took is a point of great debate,33 but it appears that the exiles returning from Babylonia championed a policy against idolatry.
Against this background Zechariah’s vision signals a transition to a new phase in the history of the Jews. In the literary context of Zechariah 1–8 and the historical context of the early Persian period, the reason for an idol being returned to Mesopotamia is because this is the place from which many of the exiles were now returning. However, in the history of Israel, Mesopotamia was often a key source of idolatry, insofar as it was the idolatrous center from which Abraham was called (Josh. 24:2–3) and from where idolatry flooded the Promised Land after the falls of the northern and southern kingdoms (2 Kings 17:24–41; Ezek. 8).
Idolatry was an abomination to God because it represented infidelity in the covenant relationship established between him and his people. Yahweh is a jealous God, who passionately disallowed any rival (Ex. 20:4–6). The covenantal and relational nature of idolatry is illustrated by a consistent use of the image of adultery to explain the offense of idolatry (Jer. 3; Ezek. 16; 23; Hosea). Although the idols were nothing and had no power on their own (Isa. 41:22; 42:8, 17; 44:9; 45:16, 20; 46:1; 48:5, 14; 57:6, 13), they were connected with gods (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 107:37). The key is that, whether or not they actually represented a spiritual force (demon, god, goddess), the focus is on the violation of the exclusive relationship between God and his people.
Rejection of idolatry is also a feature in New Testament revelation. Paul sees the idol as “nothing” (1 Cor. 8:4), yet he does identify it with the worship of “gods” and “demons” (1 Cor. 8:5–6; 10:18–21). Idolatry is connected to the most hideous sins, such as debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing, magic arts, sexual immorality, murder, falsehood, covetousness, greed, slander, and swindling (1 Cor. 5:10; 6:9; 1 Peter 4:3; Rev. 22:15). Although these passages refer to the actual worship of idols, idolatry takes on a more general meaning for sin (Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5; 1 John 5:21). Its consistent association with sins such as lust, greed, and drunkenness suggests that it has come to mean anything that distracts our devotion to God and fosters values that are the opposite of those Christ seeks to cultivate in us.
This more general sense is vividly displayed in Romans 1:18–25, where Paul identifies the essence of idolatry. At its core, worshiping and serving created things rather than the Creator represent the refusal to acknowledge God and the exchange of truth for a lie. This foundational rejection of God leads to the spread of sin in the world as a result of God’s judgment.
Understanding idolatry within Zechariah’s community and its broader biblical-theological context helps us to see the significance of Zechariah 5:5–11 for our community of faith today. Zechariah must address the sin of idolatry. As the people return to the land to rebuild the temple, they cannot afford to repeat the preexilic pattern of infidelity through idolatry that ultimately resulted in the Exile. As the Second Temple rises before the community, Zechariah looks beyond the physical project to the spiritual renewal needed to ensure God’s presence with his people. We have already seen in 1:1–6 how repentance was essential to this renewal—that is, a turning from the wicked practices and ways that will be defined more specifically in chapters 7–8 as social injustice.34 Here, however, the prophet rejects idolatrous practices within his community because they undermine the spiritual vitality of the people by enticing them to trust foreign gods created by human hands rather than the Creator, the Lord God.
In the same way as we seek to fulfill God’s commission to extend his kingdom through the living temple of the church, we must reject idolatry and set our affections on God alone.
Contemporary Significance
RECOVERING WORSHIP IN THE CHURCH. One of the exciting features of the past decade within the church has been the recovery of worship within our corporate life. Gone are the days when the worship section of our services was considered the “preliminaries”—that is, those elements that preceded the main event, the sermon. Today considerable time and resources are devoted to facilitating creative worship experiences, allowing God’s people to use gifts in worship through the performing and fine arts. Even the sermon itself is increasingly defined under the rubric of worship. Through it God speaks to his people and draws them by his Spirit to offer their lives as living sacrifices to him.
One of our present challenges, however, is a proper definition of worship. It is easy to focus attention on the external practice of worship (song, dance, instruments, art) and ignore the internal affections of the heart. Focusing on the internal explains the equation of idolatry with covenant relationship in the Old Testament and the close association between idolatry and sin in the New Testament. God calls us to purity in both affections and practice as we walk with him.
Purity in affections lies at the core of true worship. Anything that competes with God for our affections falls in that category. With the influx of Eastern religions into Western culture, it may be a carved idol. But it could just as easily be another person or a pursuit that lures our affections away from our God and Lord. Zechariah 5:6–11 encourages us as God’s people to take stock of our affections, for “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt. 6:21).
This kind of reflection must take place on the level of individual and family as we consider our life goals and weekly activities. It does not mean that we abandon all our pursuits and retreat to a monastery to ensure that our hearts are focused on God alone. Rather, it means initiating and maintaining an orientation to life that has Christ as the center and God as the goal. In this way we will be able to fulfill Paul’s call to us in Colossians 3:17: “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”
Practicing this text may simply mean setting time aside each day, week, and year to reflect on our lives. For my wife and I, our wedding anniversary is an important moment to take stock of our lives both as individuals and as a family. In my ministry as pastor and teacher, I have always valued weekly and yearly rhythms to reflect on my personal vision and mission, while also seeking to encourage such reflection among my leaders not only individually but also corporately. The unexamined life, family, and ministry are doomed to mediocrity.
But God is also concerned with purity in practice. This means that it is possible for our practice of worship to lead us away from rather than toward God. We can see this within the contemporary worship experience of the church on several levels.
(1) It is easy for “worship” to become an occasion for fulfilling our need for entertainment, producing an emotional experience that has nothing to do with divine devotion but rather with human gratification. A worship leader who also travels as a Christian performer once related his own struggle with determining this line between devotion and gratification. He attended his church and was caught up in an experience of worship. But later that day he attended a concert performed by a secular band and realized that he experienced the same response. This forced him to reflect on the main goal of worship and the definition of true worship. By this I am not saying that our worship should avoid emotions, for an intellectualized worship can be just as dangerous as an emotional one. However, the fact that we are moved in and through a worship experience does not necessarily mean that we have worshiped.
(2) It is easy for “worship” to be placed into the hands of performing artists who have little theological training or spiritual depth. I was impressed recently by a pastor of a large urban church whose son approached him, wanting to lead a worship team at his church. The pastor encouraged his son to first take a course on Old Testament theology at a local seminary. Of course, I was thrilled with this fatherly advice because of my vocational interest in Old Testament studies, but what thrilled me more was the fact that this pastor took seriously the role that worship leaders play in the theological formation of his congregation.
With worship leaders designing at least a half hour of worship at weekly services (if not more), it is obvious that they will have at least as much, if not more, influence on the theological formation of local congregations as pastors do when they preach the Scriptures. Charged with such a task, they need to pay careful attention to Paul’s word to Timothy: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16). To be a worship leader today demands a high level of theological and spiritual training. Worship teams should be trained in more than just key changes and PowerPoint productions. They desperately need to be mentored in their study and experience of God.
Recovering worship in our culture. We must also live lives of practice because of the cultural milieu in which we live. In his recent acclaimed review of experiential religion, Harvey Cox cites lyrics from British rock singer Sting’s song “If I Ever Lose My Faith in You”:
You could say I lost my faith in science and progress.
You could say I lost my belief in the holy church.
You could say I lost my sense of direction.
Cox interprets these lyrics by writing:
. . . many have now lost faith both in “science and progress” and in “the holy church.” People are still willing to rely on science for the limited things it has proven it can do, but they no longer believe it will answer their deepest questions. They remain vaguely intrigued with the traditional religions, but not with conventional churches. They want to pick and choose and are less willing to accept religions either as systems of truth or as institutions.35
Cox highlights the restoration of spirituality onto the agenda of our culture, a restoration that is reflected well in a recent book I spied at my local coffee shop.36 In this book I found photographs depicting shrines in various private homes in North America. Most of them revealed an eclectic blend of objects from various religions, combined to create a syncretistic display in the privacy of a person’s home. Unquestionably this book reflects the tenor of our times in which religion is a blend of various traditions assembled according to individual taste.
Cox places my experience in the local coffee shop into socio-religious perspective in his paraphrase of Danièle Hervieu-Léger’s description of religion today as “spiritual bricolage”:
It is a radically personal style of piety in which, as it were, each person is constantly compiling his or her own collage of symbols and practices in the light of what coheres with their own changing experiences in the tortuous passage through life in a world where the old, allegedly comprehensive charts no longer command confidence.37
I discovered this contemporary openness to spirituality on a recent flight from Calgary to Edmonton. I sat next to an older woman sporting a beautiful tan, and in the course of our conversation she told me she was returning from a six-week trip to Mexico. She explained that each year she traveled to the coast of Mexico to help lead six week-long “environmental retreats.” Facilitators at these events included leading scientists from around the world who led the participants to discover various aspects of nature during the day. In the evening this woman, who had a degree from a seminary in eastern Canada, led the group in yoga with the express purpose of becoming one with the environment.
Curiosity got the better of me, so I asked another question: “Who come to these retreats?” I anticipated she would describe an eccentric lot. Instead, she informed me that the participants were top corporate, governmental, and educational leaders from across the globe. The six weeks were fully booked each year as their various institutions paid exorbitant fees for the retreats. Probing further I discovered that one of the leading banks in Canada employs two “spiritual directors” within one province to facilitate spiritual discovery for their executives. This encounter opened my eyes again to a new spiritual mood in Western culture.
Our challenge in this milieu is to capitalize on this new openness to spirituality while not compromising our Christian values.38 On the one side, we need discernment from the Scriptures as to what is appropriate spiritual practice and what is idolatrous. Many Western converts entering the church in the coming decades will need wise counsel from Christian leaders and mentors to separate truth from error in their spiritual practices. On the other side, there is an active role that the church can play in shaping the spiritual agenda of a generation. This begins with the first issue considered above, the ongoing renewal of worship within the church. As people encounter vibrant communities of faith that passionately pursue the presence of God through proper worship, they are drawn to the witness of the gospel.
But this agenda for the renewal of worship should also spill out into the surrounding community. The church should take the initiative and provide guidance for spiritual discovery within the broader communities in which they serve. This may mean providing classes in Christian spiritual disciplines at a local community center or facilitating a Christian environmental retreat that invites people to discover creation and their Creator. It may mean that we need to provide opportunities for unbelievers to join us as a community in our corporate worship experiences in order to model worship in spirit and truth.39 At times we can also find ways to involve our local community in our worship experiences, even if it is as simple as an annual singing of Handel’s Messiah or a Christmas pageant experience during Advent.
Jesus describes his mission in terms of the Father seeking a worshiping community: “Yet a time is coming and has now come, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks” (John 4:23). It is not surprising, then, that when the church was founded through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit by the ascended Christ in Acts 2, their initial activity was worship as they began “declaring the wonders of God” in the languages of the many people gathered in Jerusalem. From this kind of worshiping community came the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:14–40) and the conversion of the multitudes (2:41).
Zechariah 5:5–11 challenges the church today to faithfulness in affection and action as we worship our God: to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. The Persian period Jewish community facing the temptations and influence of pagan religion were called to purity and fidelity. This message is equally important today as we seek to live faithfully before our God in our eclectic religious milieu.