CHAPTER 1
I. Introduction (1:1-6)
1:1 Zechariah's first prophetic message came during the eighth month of Darius I's second year on the throne — October 520 BC, only two months following the commencement of Haggai's preaching ministry. Since Zechariah prophesied at the conclusion of the exile, there was no king in Judah to whose reign the prophet's ministry correlated. Thus, Zechariah dated his service to the rule of the Persian king, Darius I or Darius the Great.
Governing from 522-486 BC, Darius the Great was a well known king, particularly because of the famous Behistun Inscription that extols the Persian ruler's accomplishments. This massive cuneiform text carved on the side of a mountain largely enabled the decipherment of Akkadian, the language of Assyria and Babylonia, and proclaimed many of the king's greatest accomplishments.
According to ancient historical records as well as Zech 1:11, peace reigned over the Persian empire once Darius the Great had quelled the many rebellions throughout the kingdom. Nonetheless, despite the general serenity the empire experienced, the era also reflected tremendous political transition as the great Babylonian kingdom receded from view and Persia emerged to exert total dominance over the entire region. One constant amid all of the change, however, was Jerusalem's state of disrepair and the Israelite people's disenchantment with their future prospects. As he had done many times before, the Lord set apart a prophet and gave a word of revelation to him in order to guide and encourage the nation as they navigated uncharted territory.
After dating the prophecy that would follow, Zechariah affirmed that his message came directly from God himself. The phrase the prophet used, "the word of the Lord" (debar-YHWH), occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and especially in the writing prophets, to assert divine authority. This expression typically functions as a technical term to claim divine revelation for a prophecy. The same phrase opens the books of Hosea, Joel, Jonah, Micah, Zephaniah, and Malachi. Similar phrasing begins the book of Haggai also. Occurring dozens of times in the prophets alone, the phrase usually appears either at the beginning and/or ending of most prophetic oracles, not just at the beginning of prophetic books. For instance, the expression occurs repeatedly in the book of Zechariah.
Verse 1 also introduces the prophet who received the divine message, "Zechariah son of Berekiah, son of Iddo" (see 1:7). This brief genealogy personalizes Zechariah, giving more information about the prophet himself than any of the other minor prophets except for Zephaniah. Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Haggai offer no family information whatsoever. Hosea, Joel, and Jonah only mention the prophet's father. By providing this additional information, Zechariah emphasized his continuity with the past and served to distinguish him from others who bore this popular name.
The name "Zechariah," one of the most popular names in the Old Testament, attributed to some two dozen individuals history has recalled, means "Yahweh remembers." Like so many other proper names in the Old Testament, Zechariah the prophet's name describes God's covenantal relationship with his people, assuring Israel that the Lord's relationship to his people continues, even during an era filled with discouragement and oppression.
Although the theological significance of Zechariah's name could not be clearer, questions persist regarding the identity of Zechariah. These questions lead to several divergent interpretations concerning Zechariah the prophet, including the claim that several Zechariahs might have lived in the same era. The fundamental problem is that Zech 1:1 refers to "Zechariah son of Berekiah, the son of Iddo," while the genealogies in Ezra 5:1 and 6:14 fail to mention Berekiah. Hence, when Ezra mentions Zechariah, Ezra portrays the prophet solely as "son of Iddo." This omission of Berekiah in Ezra has long puzzled interpreters.
Numerous solutions to the question have emerged over the centuries. First, Jerome suggests that Zechariah was the son of Berekiah according to the flesh and son of Iddo according to the Spirit. Despite Jerome's storied role in the history of interpretation, his fanciful conclusion has influenced few because of its total lack of supporting evidence.
Second, others maintain that the reference to Berekiah represents nothing more than an unfortunate abbreviation of the name Jeberekiah in the brief genealogy of Isa 8:2 that mentions a Zechariah as the "son of Jeberekiah." However, the ancient manuscripts of the book of Zechariah support the reading "Berekiah," yielding absolutely no evidence for this view.
Third, some scholars who attribute the authorship of the canonical book of Zechariah to two "Zechariahs" consider chaps. 1-8 the work of Zechariah son of Iddo, while chaps. 9-14 reflect the efforts of the anonymous "Zechariah son of Berekiah." This suggestion remains unconvincing partly because the suggestion that multiple authors penned the book of Zechariah has its own difficulties and also due to the conjectural nature of the suggestion. The conclusion that there were two books of Zechariah that were awkwardly fashioned into one book by "Zechariah son of Berekiah, the son of Iddo" completely lacks evidence and suffers from the same tenuousness that any argument from silence endures. As stated above, the Hebrew textual tradition solidly supports the reading, "Zechariah son of Berekiah, the son of Iddo."
Fourth, Meyers and Meyers mention the possibility that there were two postexilic Zechariahs with the same immediate patronymic of Berekiah, requiring the grandfather's name to distinguish the two. As with the previous suggestions, this view also lacks any external support.
Fifth, some scholars have even conjectured that Berekiah may have died when Zechariah was young, making Zechariah the successor to Iddo. However, this unproven suggestion does not warrant serious consideration.
Sixth, another understanding identifies Berekiah as Zechariah's father, and Iddo as the prophet's grandfather. This interpretation recognizes that the Hebrew wordben ("son") can be readily translated "grandson of." Understanding the word ben ("son") both as "son" and "grandson" would parallel the case of Jehu where 2 Kgs 9:20 (also 1 Kgs 19:16) calls him "son of Nimshi," while 2 Kgs 9:2, 14 call him "son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi." This interpretation lends itself to the passage quite well and accommodates the differences between the passages in Ezra and Zechariah.
Another passage, Neh 12, identifies Zechariah as a member of Iddo's family. When listing heads of priestly families during the time of Joiakim, Neh 12:16 presents Zechariah as one of Iddo's descendants. Nehemiah, however, does not explicitly state that the Zechariah he mentions is the same as the minor prophet.
The typical critical approach to the identity of Zechariah in Nehemiah discounts the historical reliability of the genealogy in 1:1 as well as the view that the book of Zechariah came from a single pen. Mitchell and Cross represent the critical position, concluding that Neh 12:16 probably refers to another Zechariah living during the postexilic era. This negative stance toward the veracity of 1:1 and the likelihood that one person, the prophet Zechariah, produced the book bearing his name suffer from unwarranted biases.
Not all in the critical camp reach the same conclusion as Mitchell and Cross though. Blenkinsopp, for example, concludes that Zechariah in Nehemiah is the same as the minor prophet since both lived in the same era and both descended from someone named Iddo. In the final analysis, the most plausible understanding identifies the Zechariah and Iddo in Neh 12:4, 16 with those in the books of Zechariah and Ezra.
The primary significance of Zechariah's genealogy reveals that Zechariah descended from a priestly line. Since the prophet Zechariah belonged to a priestly family (see Introduction), his personal connection to the priestly office and the manifold issues surrounding the worship of the Lord partially explains the great attention the prophet often gives to priestly matters.
Moreover, Nehemiah indicates that Zechariah and his family were among the faithful who had endured the exile. Not only did Zechariah receive a divine call to the prophetic office, he also knew personally what grievous circumstances his community had experienced. Zechariah's acquaintance with sorrow and uncertainty gave him credibility to speak to others who had suffered similarly.
When one turns to the New Testament, a further complication regarding Zechariah's lineage emerges after reading Jesus' pronouncement of judgment on the Pharisees for "the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar" (Matt 23:35; see Luke 11:51). The only reference to the martyrdom of any priest named Zechariah in the Old Testament occurs in 2 Chr 24:20-22, speaking of "Zechariah son of Jehoiada." Furthermore, the event narrated in 2 Chr 24 occurred c. 800 BC, precluding any identification with our prophet. While a definitive solution to the question is unavailable, commentators tend either to suggest that our prophet was ultimately martyred or that Isaiah's associate, "Zechariah son of Jeberekiah" (Isa 8:2) is in view. The primary difficulty with both suggestions, however, is the absence of historical references to the martyrdom of either individual.
D. A. Carson addresses the problem from a New Testament perspective, summarizing the following possible solutions to the question of the identity of Zechariah in Matt 23:35: (1) Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist could be the person in mind. However, there is no evidence that he was martyred. (2) Jewish zealots murdered Zechariah, son of Baris/Baruch/Bariscaeus, in the temple. Again, the evidence supporting this view is sketchy at best. (3) Matthew could have intended Zechariah, son of Berekiah (Zech 1:1), but once more, no reference to his martyrdom exists. (4) Jesus may have spoken of a Zechariah who is unknown to modern readers. (5) Matthew may have had Zechariah son of Jehoiada (2 Chr 24:20-22) in mind.
Verse 1 also identifies Zechariah as a prophet, establishing him as a member of the specially called ministers of God. God inaugurated the prophetic office in the Old Testament, although secular prophets emerged in ancient Near Eastern venues such as Mari. The call narratives in Isa 6, Jer 1, and Ezek 1 give insight into the gravity and spiritual character of the prophetic office. Biblical prophets were called by God to serve as spokesmen for the Lord himself. The power of their message was immeasurable, and von Rad noted that the prophets changed "the gears of history with a word of God." The Old Testament prophet confronted rebellion against the Lawgiver wherever found, whether in royal courts, priestly circles, or among the common people throughout the land.
1:2 The prophet's word from God came in the form of a sermon that resembles other sermons in which the preacher addresses the audience in the second person. Faithful to the homiletical genre, Zechariah repeatedly referred back to earlier teachings in the Torah as well as other divine commands, and he freely employed exhortation to enjoin his hearers to repent and return to God. (See the helpful parallels in Deut 20:1-9; Josh 1:111; 2 Chr 15:1-7; 19:6-7; 20:15-17; 30:6-9; Jer 7:1-26.)
Zechariah began his first sermon with a painful reminder of Israel's current plight and the historical circumstances that led to their present difficulties. The prophet cautioned the people that the Lord is a God whose anger blazes at the sin of his people. God's wrath in response to the nation's sin and his judgment on sinners characterize God's relationship with his people from the time of the fall (Gen 3) and the flood (Gen 6) to Zechariah's day and to today. The Lord simply cannot tolerate sin among his people.
This oracle does not limit itself to reviewing the prior relationship between the Lord and the preexilic community, remembering why the nation finds itself in such difficult circumstances. Actually, the passage contains a rather thinly veiled threat that should the people of Judah continue in their sin, God might punish them again severely. Consequently, the people of God should fear God's holiness and respond accordingly. While often implicit, the theme of divine anger reappears forcefully in the book of Zechariah, especially in 1:15 and 7:12.
Zechariah warned his audience that the Babylonian exile ensued because their forefathers obstinately spurned the admonitions of the prophets who had pleaded with them to repent and be spared God's imminent judgment. Lest there be any doubt about the accuracy of the former prophets' message, Zechariah reminded his readers that the historical events themselves vindicated the prophets and the truthfulness of their predictions. The people they denounced had long since passed from the scene (1:5). However, Zechariah relied on the abiding Word of God, in this case, a message of judgment, recalling Isaiah's similar confidence:
So is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it (Isa 55:11).
Therefore, since the Lord's word of judgment continues to testify against lawlessness, Zechariah's hearers must take immediate action and repent in order to forestall judgment.
1:3-6 Zechariah strongly evoked these past memories by quoting language used by the earlier prophets. In particular, Zechariah echoed the very expression most often associated with Jeremiah — return [šûb] to the Lord. Zechariah's plea also reminded his audience of Isaiah's dual-pronged prophecy that "a remnant will return" (Isa 10:21), a message of both judgment and grace. Zechariah's use of šûb incorporates a pun on the meaning of the word. The initial occurrence of the term indicates repentance, a change of life. The latter usage conveys a change in the Lord's response to his people from judgment to favor.
As judgment, the prophecy foretells the demise of the nation and the deportation of Judah. As an expression of grace, the "remnant" theme promises that God will remember his covenant with his people and ultimately will restore their fortunes.
The warning could not be clearer — the nation has the choice either of repenting from their sins or remaining stubborn and suffering a fate reminiscent of Judah of old. Zechariah, like Jeremiah, longed to see God's people spared the punishment their sins demanded. Although the threat to the well being of the postexilic community was real, Zechariah held out great hope for Israel's future, believing that the people would indeed turn from sin to God. Like their fathers who had faced their own mortality, each person must meet death as well (1:5). Judah must not procrastinate, counting on the long-suffering of God and the certainty of another day of life since God offers only a limited time for repentance.
In his disputations with Pelagius, Augustine gave careful attention to v. 3, "Return to me ... and I will return to You." Augustine strongly opposed the Pelagian view that God extended his grace based on the recipient's merits. In contrast, Augustine argued that God gives his grace freely, not on the basis of human worth to receive that grace. Commenting on v. 3, Augustine wrote, "One of these clauses — that which invites our return to God — evidently belongs to our will; while the other, which promises his return to us, belongs to his grace."
It is important to recognize that Zechariah's message rests solidly upon covenantal language and concepts. To turn from the Lord means breaking covenant with him by turning toward "evil ways" and "evil practices" (1:4). The covenantal terms "word" (dabar) and "statute" (hoq) in 1:6 further underscore the covenantal tone of the sermon. Hence, for Israel to forsake the Lord represents treason. How could the people expect God to keep his covenant while they deliberately violate the covenant themselves?
The people's repentance (šûb) in 1:6b refers to the preexilic fathers who repented, albeit too late to avoid God's judgment. Verse 6 does not contradict 1:4, even though v. 6 indicates that Judah did repent, while v. 4 suggests that they did not.29 Ezra 9:1-10:17 and Dan 9:1-19 describe the people's remorse for their sins after it was too late to avert the Babylonian exile. In typical Old Testament fashion, the prophet drew from history to make his theological point. Zechariah's contemporaries had an opportunity to learn from their forefathers' wayward paths, and in so doing, to insure God's future blessings on their lives.
