N
NotWorthy
Guest
I’m confused… what exactly are you questioning?
The Zechariah in 2 Chronicles is the son of Jehosephat (of the jumping fame), isn’t he? Can this be the prophet Zechariah?
- Status
The Zechariah in 2 Chronicles is the son of Jehosephat (of the jumping fame), isn’t he? Can this be the prophet Zechariah?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Here it is. Antonio Fuentes, who is compiling the Navarre Bible Commentaries writes:
The book of Zechariah (= “Yahweh remembers”) comes chronologically after that of Haggai. The prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah and grandson of Iddo, belonged to a priestly family which had returned from exile to Babylon.
The book of Zechariah (= “Yahweh remembers”) comes chronologically after that of Haggai. The prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah and grandson of Iddo, belonged to a priestly family which had returned from exile to Babylon.
A
Angelos
Guest
Hi NotWorthy 
Thanks for reminding me to clarify my question. There are two distinct characters named “Zechariah” in the Bible. The martyrdom of the first Zechariah is related in the 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. This Zechariah, who was stoned to death in the temple courts during the reign of Joash, was the son of Jehoiada the priest. In Luke, Jesus apparently refers to this Zechariah.
However, there was another man named Zechariah, who was a Jewish prophet, and - as you stated - this Zechariah was the son of Berachiah and the grandson of Iddo. This prophet was not murdered in the Temple courts! Listen to what the Catholic encyclopedia says about him:
“This Zacharia is most likely the Prophet and author of the canonical book of the same name. It is not at all probable that the Prophet Zacharias is referred to by Christ (Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:51) as having been slain by the Jews in the Temple; that Zacharias was the son of Joiada (2 Chronicles 24:20). Moreover, the Jews of Zorobabel’s time obeyed the Prophet Zacharias (Zechariah 6:7); nor is there, in the Books of Esdras, any trace of so heinous a crime perpetrated in the Temple court.”
newadvent.org/cathen/15741b.htm
Why did Jesus say in Matthew that the Zechariah killed in the temple courts was the son of Berachias?
Thanks for reminding me to clarify my question. There are two distinct characters named “Zechariah” in the Bible. The martyrdom of the first Zechariah is related in the 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. This Zechariah, who was stoned to death in the temple courts during the reign of Joash, was the son of Jehoiada the priest. In Luke, Jesus apparently refers to this Zechariah.
However, there was another man named Zechariah, who was a Jewish prophet, and - as you stated - this Zechariah was the son of Berachiah and the grandson of Iddo. This prophet was not murdered in the Temple courts! Listen to what the Catholic encyclopedia says about him:
“This Zacharia is most likely the Prophet and author of the canonical book of the same name. It is not at all probable that the Prophet Zacharias is referred to by Christ (Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:51) as having been slain by the Jews in the Temple; that Zacharias was the son of Joiada (2 Chronicles 24:20). Moreover, the Jews of Zorobabel’s time obeyed the Prophet Zacharias (Zechariah 6:7); nor is there, in the Books of Esdras, any trace of so heinous a crime perpetrated in the Temple court.”
newadvent.org/cathen/15741b.htm
Why did Jesus say in Matthew that the Zechariah killed in the temple courts was the son of Berachias?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
A
Angelos
Guest
Thanks for your quick reply NotWorthy. Sorry to say that the response given by the Catholic Culture.com is neither convincing nor reasonable! First, I would never regard the occurrence of the name Berachiah in Matthew as a scribal error. Those kinds of errors basically arise from the unintentional confusion of some Hebrew characters (names) or digits (numbers). Since there was no name in Luke’s account and since deletions were more common than additions in terms of scribal errors, it was not likely that a copyist added to Matthew’s text with no good reason. Remember: most of the scribal errors resulted some copyists’ good intention to bring one text close to another and assimilate the odd statements peculiar to a text so as to harmonize the accounts. In this case, a copyist would try to delete the name Berachiah from Matthew rather than add it.
Second, there are two Zechariahs in the Bible, and the main problem stems from Jesus’ deliberate efforts to present them as one single person. Although it is probable that people from the same lineage had the same name (nothing more than a coincidence), it is improbable these two people with the same name lived through the same kind of tragic death and martyrdom in the same place! This is why I guess we need other solutions based on the notion of Jesus’ famous metaphoric language or Matthew’s overall tendency to draw interesting analogies between the Old Testament prophecies and the accounts in his Gospel. For instance, Matthew refers to an oral prophecy that’s not present in the written scripture when he claims that Jesus’ identification as a Nazarene was foreknown by the prophets (2: 23).
Third, the part quoted from Luke by that website has nothing to do with the historic account of Zechariah’s martyrdom in 2 Chronicles 24: 20-22.
For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ **so that **this generation may be held accountable for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation (Luke 11: 49-51). The statements after the word “persecute” belong to Jesus, not to an unknown scripture!
In Matthew the Wisdom of God is Jesus Himself since we find Him utter the same sentence as a prophecy concerning the martyrdom of the apostles and disciples:
“For this reason I am sending you prophets and wise men and experts in the law, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, **so that **on you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth; this generation will be held responsible for all these things! (Matthew 23: 34-36).
For better solutions to this problem, maybe it is crucial that we focus on the other differences between Matthew and Luke’s accounts. In Luke, Jesus says Zechariah was killed between the altar and the sanctuary (with no reference to the murderer) whereas in Matthew He blames Jewish leaders of His time for that hideous crime. Moreover, the phrase “blood of all the prophets” in Luke is replaced with “all the righteous blood shed on earth” in Matthew. These variations in the sentence structure might help us find a convincing solution to this problem. Soon I am going to post my mostly speculative solution.
Second, there are two Zechariahs in the Bible, and the main problem stems from Jesus’ deliberate efforts to present them as one single person. Although it is probable that people from the same lineage had the same name (nothing more than a coincidence), it is improbable these two people with the same name lived through the same kind of tragic death and martyrdom in the same place! This is why I guess we need other solutions based on the notion of Jesus’ famous metaphoric language or Matthew’s overall tendency to draw interesting analogies between the Old Testament prophecies and the accounts in his Gospel. For instance, Matthew refers to an oral prophecy that’s not present in the written scripture when he claims that Jesus’ identification as a Nazarene was foreknown by the prophets (2: 23).
Third, the part quoted from Luke by that website has nothing to do with the historic account of Zechariah’s martyrdom in 2 Chronicles 24: 20-22.
For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ **so that **this generation may be held accountable for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation (Luke 11: 49-51). The statements after the word “persecute” belong to Jesus, not to an unknown scripture!
In Matthew the Wisdom of God is Jesus Himself since we find Him utter the same sentence as a prophecy concerning the martyrdom of the apostles and disciples:
“For this reason I am sending you prophets and wise men and experts in the law, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, **so that **on you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth; this generation will be held responsible for all these things! (Matthew 23: 34-36).
For better solutions to this problem, maybe it is crucial that we focus on the other differences between Matthew and Luke’s accounts. In Luke, Jesus says Zechariah was killed between the altar and the sanctuary (with no reference to the murderer) whereas in Matthew He blames Jewish leaders of His time for that hideous crime. Moreover, the phrase “blood of all the prophets” in Luke is replaced with “all the righteous blood shed on earth” in Matthew. These variations in the sentence structure might help us find a convincing solution to this problem. Soon I am going to post my mostly speculative solution.
B
bones_IV
Guest
Here’s something I thought you guys might like.
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm
There are three main schools of thought:
~ The Jerome Tradition (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) ~
~ The Markan priority theory (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John)~
~ The Clementine Tradition (Matthew, Luke, Mark, John) ~
THE JEROME TRADITION asserts that:
+ The order of Gospel composition was in the sequence they appear in our Bibles today.
+ St. Jerome and some other early Christians made use of this order.
+ If internal evidence contradicts these historians, the literary analysis must be in error.
THE MARKAN PRIORITY THEORY asserts that:
+ Those, who wrote second and third, would have improved the literary form of the Greek in the borrowed verses. They would not have deliberately corrupted the Greek.
+ Mark
+ As Luke also improved on Mark
Christianity is therefore not built on a firm historical basis.
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm
There are three main schools of thought:
~ The Jerome Tradition (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) ~
~ The Markan priority theory (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John)~
~ The Clementine Tradition (Matthew, Luke, Mark, John) ~
THE JEROME TRADITION asserts that:
+ The order of Gospel composition was in the sequence they appear in our Bibles today.
+ St. Jerome and some other early Christians made use of this order.
+ If internal evidence contradicts these historians, the literary analysis must be in error.
THE MARKAN PRIORITY THEORY asserts that:
+ Those, who wrote second and third, would have improved the literary form of the Greek in the borrowed verses. They would not have deliberately corrupted the Greek.
+ Mark
s Gospel is in poor Greek when compared to that of Matthew and Luke. + So Matthew and Luke must have borrowed from Mark. + This shows that Mark wrote prior to the other two (i.e. Markan priority). + Matthew the Apostle (an eyewitness of the public life of Christ) would not have borrowed from a non-eyewitness when forming the basis of his account. + This indicates that Matthew the Apostle did not write the Gospel named after him. It must have been composed by an unknown person at a later date, using Marks Gospel as a basis and adding additional material from other sources (these are referred to as Q).+ As Luke also improved on Mark
s Greek, he must also have written late. This means he could not have been a companion of Paul. + These findings of modern literary analysis show that the ancient historians were in error. They are not therefore a reliable source for the historical claim that the fourth Gospel was by John the Apostle, eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus.. + As none of the authors of the Gospels were Apostles or their companions, their writings can not be seen as accurate accounts of what Jesus said and did. +The authors must have been unknown writers, living at late dates, expressing their beliefs in the form of stories. As the Markan priority theory is based upon modern scientific research, and the Jerome Tradition is based on historical records, Science should be trusted in preference toold traditions. The Jesus of Historyis not the same asThe Christ of Faith`Christianity is therefore not built on a firm historical basis.
B
bones_IV
Guest
THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
+ Challenged by Markan priority, Protestants and Catholics, at the beginning of the 20th century, encouraged a deeper study of ancient languages and placed large resources at the disposal of archaeological researchers in Palestine. This has born rich fruit.
+ Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
+ In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first.
+ Challenged by Markan priority, Protestants and Catholics, at the beginning of the 20th century, encouraged a deeper study of ancient languages and placed large resources at the disposal of archaeological researchers in Palestine. This has born rich fruit.
+ Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
+ In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first.
Code:
+ Clement of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark, so producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. The Church Fathers used the same order.
+ When Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament in the fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today.
+ A growing number of modern literary analysists recognize that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternatively, so confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third.
+ Both the historical and literary evidence shows that Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles
+ Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternatively quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the work of Luke (a non-eyewitness Apostle).
+ The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed to those who made requests. This explains the apparent `poor Greek` of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.
+ By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel..
+ This vindication of the reliability of the historical records makes them a reliable and firm authority for accepting that John the Apostle wrote the fourth Gospel.
+ The Clementine Tradition brings the ancient historical records and the latest literary analysis together in perfect agreement.
A
Angelos
Guest
Hi again
The only solution I can find to this problem is twofold: First, it is not unlikely that Jesus referred to an oral tradition concerning the tragic death of Zechariah the prophet since the fact that such a significant account of martyrdom was not recorded in the Old Testament would not deny its actual occurrence. At this point, it is unreasonable to blame Jesus for concocting a story about the death of one of the great Jewish prophets, nor is it plausible to surrender to the allegation that Matthew made a mistake while trying to embellish the Lord’s accounts in his Gospel. It must also be remembered that putting the whole blame on unknown scribes will indirectly support those who claim biblical corruption.
Second, the attribution of Jesus’ remarks to an oral tradition unknown by the writers of Jewish scripture might be the first step taken to find a solution to Zechariah’s problematic identification as the son of Berachiah in Matthew 23:34-36 even though many skeptics will obviously find this theory unconvincing and rather doubtful as the lack of some historic evidence equates it with a mere presumption. Nonetheless, a stronger solution to this so-called problematic verse is bound to the comparison of the Lord’s statements in Matthew with those in Luke on the basis of their placement in the whole Gospel composition. In Luke we see Jesus denounce the Pharisees and the experts of the Law (11:37-54), and cast judgment upon Israel with the implicit prediction of the destruction of the Temple (14:31-35) in two different places as two different incidents taking place before Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem. However, in Matthew, these separate incidents are worked into one chapter (23: 1-39) and placed right before the discourse of Jesus’ predictions about the fall of Jerusalem and the end of times (24: 1- 51). Thus, in Matthew Jesus reproaches the Jewish religious authorities when He is in Jerusalem and in the Temple area (23:39-24:1), denounces them for their historic partnership with the murderers of righteous people and prophets, shows the continuous martyrdom of the prophets sent to Jerusalem as the reason for the judgment upon Israel, and finally makes associations between Jerusalem’s fall and the end of times. Obviously, Matthew presents these accounts with a clearer textual unity so as to highlight their thematic unity, using his text as the mirror of the themes employed.
The only solution I can find to this problem is twofold: First, it is not unlikely that Jesus referred to an oral tradition concerning the tragic death of Zechariah the prophet since the fact that such a significant account of martyrdom was not recorded in the Old Testament would not deny its actual occurrence. At this point, it is unreasonable to blame Jesus for concocting a story about the death of one of the great Jewish prophets, nor is it plausible to surrender to the allegation that Matthew made a mistake while trying to embellish the Lord’s accounts in his Gospel. It must also be remembered that putting the whole blame on unknown scribes will indirectly support those who claim biblical corruption.
Second, the attribution of Jesus’ remarks to an oral tradition unknown by the writers of Jewish scripture might be the first step taken to find a solution to Zechariah’s problematic identification as the son of Berachiah in Matthew 23:34-36 even though many skeptics will obviously find this theory unconvincing and rather doubtful as the lack of some historic evidence equates it with a mere presumption. Nonetheless, a stronger solution to this so-called problematic verse is bound to the comparison of the Lord’s statements in Matthew with those in Luke on the basis of their placement in the whole Gospel composition. In Luke we see Jesus denounce the Pharisees and the experts of the Law (11:37-54), and cast judgment upon Israel with the implicit prediction of the destruction of the Temple (14:31-35) in two different places as two different incidents taking place before Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem. However, in Matthew, these separate incidents are worked into one chapter (23: 1-39) and placed right before the discourse of Jesus’ predictions about the fall of Jerusalem and the end of times (24: 1- 51). Thus, in Matthew Jesus reproaches the Jewish religious authorities when He is in Jerusalem and in the Temple area (23:39-24:1), denounces them for their historic partnership with the murderers of righteous people and prophets, shows the continuous martyrdom of the prophets sent to Jerusalem as the reason for the judgment upon Israel, and finally makes associations between Jerusalem’s fall and the end of times. Obviously, Matthew presents these accounts with a clearer textual unity so as to highlight their thematic unity, using his text as the mirror of the themes employed.
A
Angelos
Guest
continuing from above 
What does this thematic and textual unity have to do with our problem? The way Matthew writes his Gospel gives us the clue that he did not only combine the two separate incidents recorded by Luke under one chapter, but also introduced the two Zechariahs in the Jewish scripture (son of Jehoiada and of Berachiah) in the same context as a single person. Obviously, the reason why Matthew did that was not only the existence of two religious figures with the identical name Zechariah! In order to find out Matthew’s reasons, we must compare what happened to Zechariah, son of Jehoiada with what Zechariah, son of Berachia said:
After Jehoiada died, the officials of Judah visited the king and declared their loyalty to him. The king listened to their advice. They abandoned the temple of the Lord God of their ancestors, and worshiped the Asherah poles and idols. Because of this sinful activity, God was angry with Judah and Jerusalem. The Lord sent prophets among them to lead them back to him. They warned the people, but they would not pay attention. God’s Spirit energized Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood up before the people and said to them, “This is what God says: ‘Why are you violating the commands of the Lord? You will not be prosperous! Because you have rejected the Lord, he has rejected you!’” They plotted against him and by royal decree stoned him to death in the courtyard of the Lord’s temple. As Zechariah was dying, he said, “May the Lord take notice and seek vengeance!” At the beginning of the year the Syrian army attacked Joash and invaded Judah and Jerusalem. They wiped out all the leaders of the people and sent all the plunder they gathered to the king of Damascus. Even though the invading Syrian army was relatively weak, the Lord handed over to them Judah’s very large army, for the people of Judah had abandoned the Lord God of their ancestors. The Syrians gave Joash what he deserved. When they withdrew, they left Joash badly wounded. His servants plotted against him because of what he had done to the son of Jehoiada the priest. They murdered him on his bed. Thus he died and was buried in the City of David, but not in the tombs of the kings. (2 Chronicles 24:17-25).
What does this thematic and textual unity have to do with our problem? The way Matthew writes his Gospel gives us the clue that he did not only combine the two separate incidents recorded by Luke under one chapter, but also introduced the two Zechariahs in the Jewish scripture (son of Jehoiada and of Berachiah) in the same context as a single person. Obviously, the reason why Matthew did that was not only the existence of two religious figures with the identical name Zechariah! In order to find out Matthew’s reasons, we must compare what happened to Zechariah, son of Jehoiada with what Zechariah, son of Berachia said:
After Jehoiada died, the officials of Judah visited the king and declared their loyalty to him. The king listened to their advice. They abandoned the temple of the Lord God of their ancestors, and worshiped the Asherah poles and idols. Because of this sinful activity, God was angry with Judah and Jerusalem. The Lord sent prophets among them to lead them back to him. They warned the people, but they would not pay attention. God’s Spirit energized Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood up before the people and said to them, “This is what God says: ‘Why are you violating the commands of the Lord? You will not be prosperous! Because you have rejected the Lord, he has rejected you!’” They plotted against him and by royal decree stoned him to death in the courtyard of the Lord’s temple. As Zechariah was dying, he said, “May the Lord take notice and seek vengeance!” At the beginning of the year the Syrian army attacked Joash and invaded Judah and Jerusalem. They wiped out all the leaders of the people and sent all the plunder they gathered to the king of Damascus. Even though the invading Syrian army was relatively weak, the Lord handed over to them Judah’s very large army, for the people of Judah had abandoned the Lord God of their ancestors. The Syrians gave Joash what he deserved. When they withdrew, they left Joash badly wounded. His servants plotted against him because of what he had done to the son of Jehoiada the priest. They murdered him on his bed. Thus he died and was buried in the City of David, but not in the tombs of the kings. (2 Chronicles 24:17-25).
A
Angelos
Guest
continuing from above
In King Darius’ fourth year, on the fourth day of Kislev, the ninth month, the word of the Lord came to Zechariah. Now the people of Bethel had sent Sharezer and Regem-Melech and their companions to seek the Lord’s favor by asking both the priests of the temple of the Lord who rules over all and the prophets, “Should we weep in the fifth month, fasting as we have done over the years?” The word of the Lord who rules over all then came to me, “Speak to all the people and priests of the land as follows: ‘When you fasted and lamented in the fifth and seventh months through all these seventy years, did you truly fast for me – for me, indeed? And now when you eat and drink, are you not doing so for yourselves?’” **Should you not have obeyed the words that the Lord cried out through the former prophets **when Jerusalem was peacefully inhabited and her surrounding cities, the Negev, and the Shephelah were also populated? Again the word of the Lord came to Zechariah: “The Lord who rules over all said, ‘Exercise true judgment and show brotherhood and compassion to each other. You must not oppress the widow, the orphan, the foreigner, or the poor, nor should anyone secretly plot evil against his fellow human being.’ “But they refused to pay attention, turning away stubbornly and stopping their ears so they could not hear. Indeed, they made their heart as hard as diamond, so that they could not obey the Torah and the other words the Lord who rules over all had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore, the Lord who rules over all had poured out great wrath. “‘It then came about that just as I cried out, but they would not obey, so they will cry out, but I will not listen,’ the Lord who rules over all had said. ‘Rather, I will sweep them away in a storm into all the nations they are not familiar with.’ Thus the land had become desolate because of them, with no one crossing through or returning, for they had made the fruitful land a waste.” (7:1-14).
Strikingly, the account of Zechariah’s in 2 Chronicles and the reference made to this incident in the book of prophet Zechariah have remarkable similarities. Besides, Zechariah’s words overtly state that Jerusalem will be punished because of the mistreatment and oppression of all the prophets, which is almost identical to Jesus’ remarks after the mention of Zechariah, son of Berachiah in Matthew:
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it! Look, your house is left to you desolate! For I tell you, you will not see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’” (23:37-39).
Zechariah’s prophecy does not only give testimony to Jesus about the wickedness and crimes of the religious authorities but also alludes to Jesus’ divinity since Jesus repeats what God says in the book of Zechariah! In the light of this comparative study, it seems that Matthew had many good reasons to present the two Zechariahs as one person as a result of his peculiar writing style that drew intricate associations between the Old Testament and Christ’s Gospel.
In King Darius’ fourth year, on the fourth day of Kislev, the ninth month, the word of the Lord came to Zechariah. Now the people of Bethel had sent Sharezer and Regem-Melech and their companions to seek the Lord’s favor by asking both the priests of the temple of the Lord who rules over all and the prophets, “Should we weep in the fifth month, fasting as we have done over the years?” The word of the Lord who rules over all then came to me, “Speak to all the people and priests of the land as follows: ‘When you fasted and lamented in the fifth and seventh months through all these seventy years, did you truly fast for me – for me, indeed? And now when you eat and drink, are you not doing so for yourselves?’” **Should you not have obeyed the words that the Lord cried out through the former prophets **when Jerusalem was peacefully inhabited and her surrounding cities, the Negev, and the Shephelah were also populated? Again the word of the Lord came to Zechariah: “The Lord who rules over all said, ‘Exercise true judgment and show brotherhood and compassion to each other. You must not oppress the widow, the orphan, the foreigner, or the poor, nor should anyone secretly plot evil against his fellow human being.’ “But they refused to pay attention, turning away stubbornly and stopping their ears so they could not hear. Indeed, they made their heart as hard as diamond, so that they could not obey the Torah and the other words the Lord who rules over all had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore, the Lord who rules over all had poured out great wrath. “‘It then came about that just as I cried out, but they would not obey, so they will cry out, but I will not listen,’ the Lord who rules over all had said. ‘Rather, I will sweep them away in a storm into all the nations they are not familiar with.’ Thus the land had become desolate because of them, with no one crossing through or returning, for they had made the fruitful land a waste.” (7:1-14).
Strikingly, the account of Zechariah’s in 2 Chronicles and the reference made to this incident in the book of prophet Zechariah have remarkable similarities. Besides, Zechariah’s words overtly state that Jerusalem will be punished because of the mistreatment and oppression of all the prophets, which is almost identical to Jesus’ remarks after the mention of Zechariah, son of Berachiah in Matthew:
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it! Look, your house is left to you desolate! For I tell you, you will not see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’” (23:37-39).
Zechariah’s prophecy does not only give testimony to Jesus about the wickedness and crimes of the religious authorities but also alludes to Jesus’ divinity since Jesus repeats what God says in the book of Zechariah! In the light of this comparative study, it seems that Matthew had many good reasons to present the two Zechariahs as one person as a result of his peculiar writing style that drew intricate associations between the Old Testament and Christ’s Gospel.
- Status