We’ve come to a verse in Matthew 23 that is debated by many scholars and critics alike. Jesus is obviously referring to Zechariah son of Jehoiada the high priest, who after rebuking the unrighteous behavior of the king and the people, was stoned at the command of king Joash. When he was a child, Joash’s life was saved by Jehoiada, yet, he didn’t have mercy upon Zechariah, Jehoiada’s son (2Chronicles 24:20-22). Zechariah’s dying words were to the Lord, asking him to remember what occurred, and before the year’s end Joash was assassinated (2Chronicles 24:23-25).
Jesus’ point in Matthew 23:35 was that all the righteous blood that was shed from Abel to Zacharias, vis-à-vis from Genesis to 2Chronicles (the last book in the Jewish Bible; equivalent of our saying: Genesis to Revelation), would be required upon the generation that rejected Jesus as their Messiah (Matthew 23:36; Deuteronomy 18:15-19).
The problem with the text is Jesus says Zechariah’s father was Barachias (Matthew 23:35) and not Jehoiada (2Chronicles 24:20-22), which has caused many Biblical scholars to think the name is an early copy error. Critics, of course either conclude Jesus made an error a child would be able to pick out or that Matthew was mistaken. There are many other reasons put forth, but nothing seems as believable as the early copy error the scholars have put forward. So, what can be said about these things?
Throughout Matthew’s narrative he refers to different events that occur in Jesus’ life that paralleled and fulfilled something in Jewish history, and Matthew argues that those parallels show Jesus is the Messiah. Matthew’s narrative was meant to witness more to Jews than to gentile believers who came later. Thus, the Jewishness of his narrative would have been wasted on gentile believers, if it were written after AD 70, when, for the most part, Jews were antagonistic to anything pertaining to Jesus. I believe this implies an early account over a later one. Having this in mind, what’s going on in Matthew 23:35, and are we able to see it supporting my argument here?
For one thing Matthew 23:35 is a classic example of how first century Jews used their scriptures to support an argument or a teaching they wished to convey. Jesus didn’t make an error in naming Barachias as Zacharias’ father, nor did Matthew err in saying he did. Jesus was supporting his argument with the scribes and Pharisees by conflating two different scriptures and two different men named Zacharias. This was a common practice in Jesus’ day and the scribes and Pharisees knew exactly what Jesus was doing.
An argument involving the same people Jesus mentions appears in a Jewish Targum on Lamentations 2:20. Jeremiah was lamenting over the destruction of the Temple and the defeat of Judah before the Babylonian army:
Look, O LORD, and see! With whom have you dealt thus? Should women eat the fruit of their womb, the children of their tender care? Should priest and prophet be killed in the sanctuary of the Lord? (Lamentations 2:20)
Centuries later the Targumist paraphrased Jeremiah’s words with:
O Lord, look and see from heaven, whom You have treated thus! Is it right that the daughters of Israel should eat the fruit of their wombs, the precious infants they nurtured? Is it right to murder a priest and a prophet in the Temple of the Lord, as you murdered the high priest and faithful prophet Zechariah son of Iddo in the Temple of the Lord on the Day of Atonement because he rebuked you so that you would not sin before the Lord? (emphasis mine)
Notice that, while Jeremiah refers to the death of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (2Chronicles 24:20-22), the Targumist conflates this event with Zechariah, the son of Iddo (cp. Ezra 5:1). Iddo is actually Zechariah’s grandfather and Berechiah is his father (Zechariah 1:1). What is the Targumist doing? He’s paraphrasing the verse and encouraging his listeners, by referring, first to the sins of the Jews that helped to bring judgment upon them, causing the destruction of their Temple by Babylon. At the same time, he recalls the Lord’s forgiveness by mentioning another Zechariah, who championed the rebuilding of the Temple. Thus, using the same interpretive language, Jesus referred to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, who was slain in the Temple and incorporated the second Zechariah employed by the Targumist to express the Lord’s forgiveness if the sins of the nation. However, Jesus used the father’s name (Berechiah) instead of the grandfather’s name (Iddo). Jesus’ purpose was to warn the Jews that the Lord’s forgiveness under Zechariah the son of Berechiah, would be for naught if they didn’t repent of rejecting their Messiah, whom the Lord had sent. In other words, Jesus was speaking out of the synagogue’s own interpretive tradition, saying that the murdered prophet-priest was about to reach his ultimate vindication in the ‘end age’ (Deuteronomy 31:29; 32:32-36) judgment in that very generation for rejecting their Messiah.
Leave a Reply