John Mark Hicks

This poem climaxes the message of Zechariah 12:2-13:6. The voice of God announces judgment and mercy; Yahweh speaks into the situation. The shepherd and people of Israel, Yahweh says, will experience judgment but a remnant will emerge from the refining fire.

Zechariah 9-14 has already used shepherd imagery. Israel’s shepherds (leaders) have led their people into idolatry (Zechariah 10:1-3) and merchandized their flock for their own self-interest (Zechariah 11:4-6). Israel rejected a good shepherd who resigned (Zechariah 11:7-16). Israel’s shepherd is “worthless” and the prophet pronounced a poetic woe against him: “May the sword strike his arm and his right eye!” (Zechariah 11:17).

Just as the second half of the first oracle ended with a woe against the “worthless shepherd,” so the first half of the second oracle ends with a poetic woe against “my shepherd.” God commands the “sword,” also invoked in the first poem (Zechariah 11:17), to (1) awake and (2) strike the shepherd. Clearly, this is a violent act (cf. 2 Samuel 23:18; Isaiah 123:17; Jeremiah 50:9). This appears as an act of judgment parallel to the judgment of the “worthless shepherd” earlier.

However, this shepherd is closely associated with Yahweh who calls him “my shepherd…who is close to me.” The language of “close” is only used elsewhere in Leviticus and designates a neighbor or fellow-Israelite (cf. Leviticus 6:2; 25:14, 15). Given the emphasis to the house of David in Zechariah 12 and the leadership issues present throughout Zechariah 9-14, this probably refers to Yahweh’s chosen servant from the house of David. Yahweh has a covenantal relationship with this shepherd and, therefore, is “close.”

Yet, this shepherd is struck with the sword and his flock is scattered. It seems most appropriate, in the context of Zechariah 9-14, to read this “striking” as judgment and thus this shepherd is identified with the “worthless” shepherd in Zechariah 11:17. The judgment includes the people as well since they are scattered and the “little ones” experience the “hand” of God (cf. Amos 1:8; Isaiah 1:25). The scattering, as sheep do without a leader, is an obvious metaphor for the exile (cf. Ezekiel 34:5, 6, 12, 21).

The result of this judgment is that two-thirds of Israel will be “cut off” (“cut down” or perish) and die. Just as God “cut off” the idols in Zechariah 13:2, so God will “cut off” the majority of Israel in judgment. But one-third will remain in the land, that is, they will live.

There will be a remnant. God will not utterly destroy Israel; she shall live and not die. God will refine and test the remnant (cf. Psalm 17:3; 66:10; Jeremiah 9:7). This process will purify Israel and through it they will again learn to “call” on the name of God. In other words, the covenant between Yahweh and Israel is renewed. God again claims Israel: “They are my people.” And Israel will again confess, “Yahweh is our God.” This is the grand covenantal theme of the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. Jeremiah 24:7; 31:33; Ezekiel 37:23, 27; Hosea 2:23; Zechariah 8:8). It is a theme that finds its ultimate fulfillment in the eschatological reality of the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:1-5).

Contextually, the shepherd is judged, but early Christians read this text in the light of Jesus. Both Matthew (26:31-32) and Mark (14:27-28) place Zechariah 13:7b on the lips of Jesus who reads it through his own context. “Striking the shepherd” refers to the cross while the “scattering” refers to the response of the disciples to his suffering. The disciples will “fall away” because Jesus is arrested and goes to the cross. The synoptic writers, especially Matthew, envision a mini-exile as the disciples scattered but then gathered again in Galilee as the beginning of new community (a renewed Israel).

It appears that Jesus recognizes that the situation in Zechariah parallels his in some way. Both shepherds are killed and their flocks are scattered. But is there more than a mere parallel? Does Jesus function as this shepherd in some sense? That is, does Jesus suffer the judgment of Israel in his own person much like the suffering servant of Isaiah 53? Yahweh strikes his own shepherd but does so for the sake of Israel’s renewal and, ultimately, for the nations.

Jesus goes to the cross as a criminal. He is (unjustly) convicted of treason. He is crucified with insurrectionists. As Isaiah 53:12 announces which is quoted in Luke 22:37, he is “numbered among the transgressors.” He suffers with Israel and for Israel. He is the suffering servant who bears the judgment of Israel for the sake of redemption.

Yahweh strikes his own shepherd for the sake of the sheep.

“On that day” God will defeat the nations that assail Jerusalem (Zechariah 12:3-8).

“On that day” God will grace Israel with the ability to mourn the one they pierced (Zechariah 12:9-13:1).

“On that day” God will cleanse the land from idols and false prophets (Zechariah 13:2-6).

This is the eschatological hope of Israel. It envisions a time when God liberates Israel from the oppression of the nations, when Israel will mourn the pierced one, and when God will purify Israel. This happens at God’s initiative, by God’s grace and through God’s power.

Why was Yahweh’s servant pierced? This third message (Zechariah 13:2-6) in the first half of Zechariah’s oracle (Zechariah 12-14) provides an answer. Israel was impure due to idolatry and false prophets. Their idolatry and lying prophets led to the execution of Yahweh’s servant. Zechariah 10:1-3 also connected idolatry and false prophecy in the allusion to divination. Israel trusted its own prognosticators and the “spirit of impurity.”

It is important to note the contrast between the Spirit of God poured out upon Israel in Zechariah 12:10 and the “spirit of impurity” present in the land. This spirit is the role of lying prophets within Israel. This is not the end of prophecy in Israel—as if God will remove all prophets. Rather, it is the removal of the false prophets who are associated with idolatry. The severity of this judgment is highlighted by the death penalty. This echoes Deuteronomy’s instructions about how to treat false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5). The cleansing will be so thorough and the obedience of Israel so devout that even parents will “stab” their child and put them to death for their false prophecies.

Why does Zechariah use this imagery? The clue is found in the verb “stab” which is the same verb for “pierced” in Zechariah 12:10. Just as the people “pierced” the servant of Yahweh, so parents will “pierce” their own children who are the servants (prophets) of idols. This is the language of reversal. Where God’s servant was once judged and executed, now the prophets hostile to God will be judged and executed (cf. Numbers 25:8 as well).

On that day, no one will want to be identified with those prophets. The false prophets will try to hide from this judgment. They will remove their prophetic garb (such as Elijah wore, 2 Kings 1:8) and deny their prophetic vocation by claiming they are farmers (an echo of Amos’ protestation, Amos 7:14), but they will be found out. Their “wounds” will tell the story. Idolatrous rituals often included self-inflicted wounds (as 1 Kings 18:28 illustrates). The point is that false prophets are so thoroughly judged that no one will want to participate in their activities or claim their status.

Reading this text through a Christian lens, we see God’s initiative to cleanse Israel in the light of their repentance (mourning) regarding the “pierced” one. God pours out the Spirit to accomplish this reality and turn the people away from idols. Christians hear this text in the light of Pentecost as Israel begins to mourn the “pierced” one. At the same time, the eschatological reality has not yet fully appeared. Idolatry has not yet been fully eradicated from Israel and humanity as a whole. Zechariah’s vision has not yet been fully realized.

Israel, and the nations, yet live in hope and await the day when God will cleanse Israel, the land and the whole earth from idolatry and lying prophets. God will yet again reign in Jerusalem through the house of David.

“Send bread now, brethren, and afterward the Bibles and preachers,” David Lipscomb (1866).

I’ve often heard and said that people won’t care what you say until they know you care.  I think the following small blurb by Lipscomb reflects that principle.

****

David Lipscomb, “Fellowship,” Gospel Advocate 9 (June 1867) 476.

[After listing a number of gifts from Texas, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas and Tennessee, Lipscomb writes:] Bro. J. K. Rogers, the efficient Principal of the Christian Female College, Columbia, MO., says: “I still have in my hands an amount of money for the South. Had I better send Bibles or Bread?”  Our response is, as highly as we appreciate the Bible, and its necessity to the temporal and spiritual well-being of man, a loaf of bread to-day, in the name of Christ, would do more in opening the hearts of our Southern people to the reception of the gospel than any number of Bibles, tracts or preachers? Send bread now, brethren, and afterward the Bibles and preachers.”

The 1866 Gospel Advocate, the year its rebirth after the Civil War, is filled with notices about sharing resources with the poor and encouragement for churches both north and south to do so. Apparently, the Advocate was accused by some of controlling these resources as they came to Nashville for distribution as if the paper was a functioning benevolent society, but Lipscomb strongly rejected that libel. Rather, the Advocate was only one communication tool among others for churches to connect with each other and while the Advocate was happy to help, it was more important for one church to directly “fellowship” another church.

Lipscomb was concerned to maintain the rightful function of the church. The relief of the poor “is the true, holy, Godlike work of the church. This is the work for which the  church was established, and if it fail to do the work for which it was established, it had as well dissolve its organization and cease to be.”

This work of the church, according to Lipscomb, is the ministry of Jesus Christ. It was the work Jesus did and Jesus “personifie[s] himself in his poor brethren.” If the church does not minister to the poor, then “it can never enjoy the blessings of God.”

Below is the full article entitled “Dispensing Christian Fellowship,” Gospel Advocate 8 (24 July 1866) 478-79.

************

We have received contributions from one church at least, for needy preachers, accompanied by the suggestion that a part of it should be applied to the relief of a brother within reach of that congregation. Now it is eminently proper that that congregation should aid that brother, but there is no sense in sending that aid to the Gospel Advocate. The Gospel Advocate, nor either of its editors, has proposed to become disbursing agents for any church. We being in constant communication with the brethren South, simply proposed to forward the contributions of those not favorably situated for doing so themselves, to those in need. There are brethren in Middle Tennessee in need, and the churches should supply their wants, but do not send the means for so doing to us. We have made no effort to post ourselves in reference to the brethren in Middle Tennessee, and are as little competent to judge of their necessities as any one that could be found. We have confidence the churches will attend to the wants of those in necessity in their midst. Except in a few well known instances we have not ourselves applied what we have sent  South. Our object has been to find the members, elders of the congregations in the different desolate sections  South, best suited to distribute to the needy, and have sent to them. So that it goes as true fellowship should go, as the contribution of the Churches of Christ, to the Churches of Christ in need. Our instruction has been to remember first the wants of the preacher, so as to enable him to preach as much as possible; secondly, the impoverished widow, orphan and poor of the church, and, lastly, the suffering of the world. But in all cases it must be given as the offering of Christian fellowship to the churches South for the relief of their poor widows and orphans, and those of their vicinity. We have the fullest assurance and confidence that every dollar will be faithfully and worthily distributed, and we would earnestly urge Christians to increased activity in administering to the relief of the poor. It is the true, holy, Godlike work of the church. This is the work for which the church was established, and if it fail to do the work for which it was established, it had as well dissolve its organization and cease to be. The church must be educated to the true appreciation of its proper work, and the solemn obligation that rests upon it to perform that work, or it can never enjoy the blessings of God. Jesus Christ personified himself in his poor brethren. He stands to-day personified in the gaunt and hollow face, sunken eye, and half-clad emaciated form of widowed mothers and hungry, starving children in the South. If Christians fail to relieve their wants, no matter whether we or they believe in societies or not, and no matte whether their sympathies were Northern or Southern, the stern truth will one day meet them, “Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.”

The first section of Zechariah 12 (verses 2-8) promises Israel a new Exodus as the Angel of Yahweh will lead them into the safety of their land free from the oppression of the nations. This is the eschatological hope of Israel.

Zechariah 12:9 functions as a segway between this hopeful proclamation and the spiritual renewal of Israel. “On the day” that God purposes to destroy the nations hostile to Jerusalem, God will also rejuvenate Israel’s spiritual life through lamentation.

God will “pour out…a S(s)pirit of grace and supplication” upon the royal house of David and upon Jerusalem. This promise resonates with Joel (2:28-30) and Ezekiel (39:29) who also envisioned a time when God will pour out a gracious Spirit upon Israel. This is the renewal of Israel as they experience God’s grace and turn to God in supplication. The grace of God will turn the dynastic house of David and Jerusalem to Yahweh. God’s redemption will turn the hearts of Israel to their God.

Israel will respond to this gracious outpouring. They will mourn the one whom they pierced. The phrase containing the “pierced one” is notoriously difficult. Historically a Messianic text in both Jewish and Christian interpretation, the exact translation and its resultant meaning is problematic.

The text may read either that they will look “to” (ASV) or “on” (NIV) either “me” (NIV) or “him” (RSV; JB). The relative clause “whom they have pierced” may either refer to the one “upon” or  the one “to” whom they look (NASB) or to another whom they lament as they look to “me” (JPS). The difficulties are too complex to explain for the purposes of this post, but it is important to say something for the sake of understanding.

Yahweh is the speaker, and the traditional text reads that they (the house of David and Jerusalem) will look to or upon Yahweh (“me”). If this is the correct reading, Israel—by the grace of God—has been reoriented toward Yahweh as they look to their God for redemption. It is possible, however, that “me” should read “him” (as some Hebrew MSS do). Either way, the pierced one is either Yahweh or Yahweh’s servant (martyr).

The occasion for this reorientation is lament. Israel laments the pierced one. Is the “pierced one” Yahweh? If so, it is a metaphorical expression in Zechariah for the pain which Israel caused Yahweh. But the Hebrew may mean that Israel looks to Yahweh concerning the “pierced one,” that is, they mourn the pierced one whom Yahweh sent. Again, either way, the “pierced one” is the object of mourning.

Early Christians, as in John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7, identified the “pierced one” as Jesus. The Gospel of John associates this piercing with the thrust of the spear into the side of Jesus as the nations (Roman soldiers) and Jewish leaders (chief priests and rulers) watched. Revelation 1:7 applies this text—in combination with Daniel 7:13—in an eschatological context. When Jesus returns—when every eye will see him—“those who pierced him” will also see him and “all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.”

The New Testament, then, applies Zechariah 12:10 in two contexts: (1) the crucifixion of Jesus itself and (2) the eschatological return of Jesus. Everyone, not just Israel, will see the pierced one, and everyone, not just Israel, will mourn. In both cases Jesus is the “pierced” servant of Yahweh. Though the nations and Israel—everyone–looked upon his death with satisfaction, in the eschatological day of which Zechariah and Revelation speak they will mourn that same piercing. All the earth will recognize Jesus as the servant of Yahweh.

In the light of this piercing, Israel, according to Zechariah, will mourn. It will be a boundless mourning like morning for your “firstborn,” but even more like mourning for your only child. The language of “firstborn” echoes the Exodus narrative (and also anticipates Jesus as Yahweh’s firstborn), but also reminds us that Israel is Yahweh’s firstborn. But more pointedly, to mourn one’s only child is to mourn the loss of one’s family lineage. It is to mourn the loss of the family’s future.

That mourning is described as similar to the practice of a pagan lamentation well-known to Israel. Hadad is the Aramaic version of the storm God, Baal. Syria’s (Aram) rulers were often named after this God who first appears in the Gilgamesh Epic. Apparently, there was a well-known lamentation ritual practiced at Megiddo which would parallel the kind of mourning Israel would experience in the light of the pierced one. (Some think this lamentation actually refers back to the death of Josiah at Megiddo which ended the hopes that Israel might yet avoid exile, and his death was still lamented in the postexilic period; cf. 2 Chronicles 35:25.)

The whole of Israel—the whole land, including wives—will mourn. More specifically, the houses of David (royal dynasty), Nathan (prophets), Levi (priests) and Shimei will mourn. Why are these mentioned? These are the houses associated with the coronation of Solomon (cf. Dean R. Ulrich, WTJ 72 [2010] 251-265). The house of David had not faired well since the accession of Solomon. The royal house of David, and consequently involving the temple and Jerusalem, became a covenant-breaker; it degenerated into faithlessness. But now those institutions, on the day God pours out redemption upon Israel, will mourn the one they pierced and turn again to Yahweh in faith and covenant loyalty.

“On that day” (13:1), the day of repentance and mourning, a cleansing fountain will flow over the house of David and Jerusalem for the forgiveness of their sins. God will forgive and cleanse Israel from sin.

The promised renewal in Zechariah 12:2-8 will usher in a time of general repentance, cleansing and forgiveness. It is the reconciliation of Israel with their God. Israel will, on that day, mourn the piercing of Yahweh’s servant. Their lament will also signify their redemption. God will remember the promise to Israel.

The Parable of the Tenants is the second in a series of seven confrontations between Jesus and Jewish leaders. Jesus had entered Jerusalem as a triumphant messianic figure, cleansed the temple, and was now walking the temple courts as a rabbi (teacher) with a large following. The temple leaders could not allow this presumption to go unchallenged as it threatened their own authority. Their first question for Jesus reflects their defensiveness: “by what authority are you doing these things?” (11:28). The issue is authority.

The Parable of the Talents is Jesus’s response to the concerns of the temple leaders. He spoke the parable “to them,” that is, to “the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders” (11:27). The parable, then, is about the authority of the Jewish leadership, that is, the temple authorities (including the Sanhedrin). This is a critical point in understanding to whom the parable applies (12:9).

Another significant element that characterizes this parable is how it echoes the parable of Isaiah 5:1-7. Like this parable, Isaiah’s parable was a judgment parable. Israel is pictured as a vineyard which God (the owner) had planted, tended and protected. However, the vineyard failed to yield the fruit of righteousness. Instead, Israel had pursued violence (5:7), unjust wealth (5:8-12) and injustice (5:7, 22-23). Isaiah’s parable, like this one in Mark 12, is directed primarily at wealthy leaders, and it judges their evil.

The parable assumes a common socio-economic arrangement in Palestine. Landowners would often rent their lands to workers for a share of the profits produced by the crop. This owner built a wall, dug a winepress and built a watchtower. The owner provided everything necessary for the production of wine from this vineyard. The renters worked the field and enjoyed the fruits of their labors. At the end of the harvest, the absentee owner, as was common in Palestine, would send a servant or steward to collect the owner’s share of the profit.

In this case, however, the servants were mistreated—some beaten, some killed. The point is clear. Yahweh sent prophet after prophet to Israel over the centuries to carry a word from the Lord. Often the prophets were rejected, mistreated and some were killed. The leaders of Israel—the kings, false prophets and the wealthy—refused to hear the word of the Lord. As a consequence, as with Isaiah 5:13, Israel experienced judgment in the form of exile. And this trend had not changed in first century Palestine. The leaders of Israel refused to recognize the authority and message of John the Baptist and John was killed by the Herod Antipas. It is important to note that the Herodians are one of the groups involved in this series of confrontations (cf. Mark 12:13).

The parable reaches its climax when the owner decides to send his beloved son. The term “beloved” is the same as we find in Mark 1:11 at the baptism of Jesus and in Mark 9:7 at the transfiguration of Jesus. Mark’s narrative clearly identifies this son with Jesus, that is, Jesus the Son of God (the owner). He is no mere prophet but a son.

It may seem difficult to imagine why the tenants would think they could kill the son and inherit the land. There was a Palestinian practice of “ownerless land.” They probably assumed the father was dead because the son appeared to collect the profits and reasoned among themselves that if the son were dead then the property would be ownerless. When land is ownerless it becomes the property of those who live on it. Consequently, while their actions are certainly unjust, their actions are nevertheless calculated.

Jesus concludes the parable with a question which is not unusual except that Jesus actually answers his own question. The owner will “come and kill” the tenants. The owner will execute a just judgment much like God did in Isaiah 5. But more is said than this.

Jesus said that the owner will “give the vineyard to others.” Who are these “others?” Some suggest Jesus is referring to how the “church” (including Gentiles) will replace “Israel” in a kind of successionism (perhaps how Matthew interprets it in Matthew 21:43). But this is foreign to Mark’s context and does not fit the backdrop of Isaiah 5. Further, the church does not replace Israel but is, according to Paul, grafted into Israel (Romans 11).

Rather, it seems more appropriate to read this as a judgment against the temple authorities and leaders in Jerusalem. God will replace them and a new leadership will emerge. God will destroy the temple, as Mark 13 predicts, and the temple authorities will be judged. The new leadership is the reign of the kingdom of God through Jesus who is the eschatological Son of Man. The royal house of David, in the person of Jesus, will reign again in Jerusalem through the church but also in the new heaven and new earth. Mark does not specify any particulars at this point, but it is clear that the present temple authorities are judged and the “others” are a new leadership which serves the Father and honors the Son.

The quotation of Psalm 118 confirms this reading. The quote functions as a hermeneutical key and Jesus calls attention to this by asking: “Haven’t you read this scripture?” When Jesus triumphantly entered Jerusalem, the crowd hailed the coming of Jesus with the words of Psalm 118:26: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” Jesus is the presence of the triumphant king celebrated in Psalm 118.

The triumphant king of Psalm 118, however, was also one who experienced distress and rejection. His enemies (nations) surrounded him, “swarmed around [him] like bees,” and he was about to die (Psalm 118:10-12, 17-18). Though rejected, the Lord chose him, gave him victory and through him saved Israel.

This is the story of Jesus as well. Rejected by the temple authorities, he will be subjected to beatings and death. But God has chosen this rejected stone to become the “capstone”—perhaps even the capstone of a new temple as Jesus becomes the foundation of a renewed Israel, the people of God. As Jesus has predicted on three different occasions in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus will be killed but God will raise him from the dead.

The “chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders” understood his point. They recognized that they were the targets of this parable. Their intentions were deepened—they wanted to arrest Jesus in order to execute him (Mark 11:18). But they were unable to do act because they were afraid of the crowd which, presumably, was sympathetic to Jesus. They would have to wait for a more private occasion to arrest Jesus (cf. Mark 14:1-2).

Just as first exchange between Jesus and the temple authorities was focused on authority, so was this one. Authority, in this context, is not simply the authority to teach or an authorized agent. The meaning is fuller than that. This is also about political authority—it is the authority to rule or reign.

Whose temple is this? To whom does authority belong? The Son has come to exercise authority over this people who belong to Yahweh. It is the authority of the kingdom of God that trumps the authority of the temple leaders. The kingdom of God, in the person of Jesus, has come to the temple. God, in the person of Jesus, has come to the temple to judge its leaders.

And the leaders—as is normal for political authorities—do not like it. They turn to their most basic solution. It is what nation-states do. They use violence. They will execute their opponent. They only have to wait for the right opportunity.

The parable raises a question for readers: to whom does your allegiance belong? Is not the kingdom of God a matter of exclusive allegiance?

On Monday of Passion Week, Jesus entered the temple’s courts and prevented the normal merchandising that turned God’s “house of prayer for all nations” into a “den of robbers.” In other words, Jesus cleansed the temple just as earlier prophets had acted out symbols to embody their message. Jesus judged the temple authorities and their practices by his actions, also symbolized by the cursing the fig tree.

On Tuesday of Passion Week, Jesus encounters opposition from temple and religious leaders as he taught the people in the temple courts. Jesus’s temple cleansing had enraged the authorities and they had begun “to look for a way to kill him” (Mark 11:18).

Jesus spent Tuesday in the temple courts—walking, teaching, and watching. His presence was not ignored. Rather, the temple authorities and religious leaders—one group after another—confronted him, tested him and hoped to catch him in some trap which would expedite his death. Mark highlights these successive attempts by moving from one to the other without any narrative break. Mark 11:27-12:44 is a series of seven controversial encounters between the kingdom of God and the ruling temple authorities and their practices.

1.  “By what authority are you doing these things?” (Mark 11:28)
2. “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.” (Mark 12:11)
3. “Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” (Mark 12:14)
4. “At the resurrection whose wife will she be?” (Mark 12:23)
5. “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” (Mark 12:28)
6. “How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David?” (Mark 12:35).
7. “This poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the rest” (Mark 12:42).

These confrontations between Jesus and the religious leaders are nestled between the cursing of the fig tree which represents Israel (Mark 11) and the private discussion with his disciples concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13). The confrontations themselves provide reasons for divine judgment against Israel’s leaders and thus with consequences for Israel itself, just as the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah had done in the past. Each of the exchanges represents some aspect of Israel (more specifically, the leaders with consequences for the people) which comes under divine judgment but at the same time illuminates the path of the kingdom of God.

1. Israel rejected the authority of God’s messengers.
2. Israel rejected the stone which God had chosen.
3. Israel divided its allegiance between Caesar and God.
4. Israel lost hope in God’s power over life and death.
5. Israel failed to love God and neighbor more than burnt offerings and temple sacrifices.
6. Israel had false expectations of the Messiah.
7. Israel relished wealth and did not honor the poor (widows).

The first confrontation sets both the tone and the context for the other exchanges between Jesus and the Jewish leaders. The question they raise is central: “By what authority are you doing these things?”

What things? We would certainly include the cleansing of the temple the previous day, but there is more that is untold. We might surmise from the succeeding confrontations the sorts of “things” the leaders had in mind. They valued their wealth and favored status; they loved their power and the praise of their constituencies. They compromised with Caesar and solidified their power by distancing themselves from Messianic hopes.

The message of Jesus is the kingdom of God. Israel was supposed to flourish as that kingdom, but it—in the persons of its leaders—had rejected John the Baptist’s prophetic message of repentance. John came to prepare Israel for the coming of the kingdom through repentance, but the “chief priests, teachers of the law and the elders” refused to repent. They did not see the contrast between their present reign and the reign of the kingdom of God.

The authority of the kingdom of God—in the person of Jesus—threatened their authority. The message of the kingdom of God undermined their understanding of what it meant to reign as God’s leaders among the people. Consequently, they could not acknowledge John and now they had to kill Jesus, just as John himself was martyred for the sake of the kingdom.

Jesus, of course, does not answer their question except by implying that the answer to his question is the answer to their question. Jesus was commissioned by the same authority that John was. They are both prophets sent from God.

Jesus stumped them because they were unwilling to acknowledge John’s authority lest they hear the call to repent, but they were also unwilling to deny it because the people honored John as a prophet.

Jesus does not deny he has authority. Indeed, he implicitly asserts it. Moreover, the previous day he had acted on that authority by cleansing the temple. He simply refuses to justify his authority to those who not only would not believe what he says but who are only interested in some pretense for executing him. Jesus exercises the authority of the kingdom of God against the authority of the temple priests and rulers who live in shocking compromise with Roman authorities.

This exchange begins a series of confrontations that will ultimately lead to his arrest, trial and execution. But at the same time these exchanges reveal the just judgment of God against the ruling authorities in Jerusalem. The drama that will lead to the cross is now fully in play.

Zechariah 12-14 is the second oracle of the second half of the book of Zechariah. The first half of Zechariah contained eight visions (Zechariah 1-6) and four messages (Zechariah 7-8). The second half of Zechariah comes in the form of two oracles (the Hebrew term only occurs in Zechariah 9:1, 12:1 and Malachi 1:1). The first (Zechariah 9-11) promised a restored Israel—both Judah and Ephraim—but delayed the promise due to the rejection of Yahweh’s appointed shepherd. The second oracle (Zechariah 12-14) envisions a bright future for Israel and uses apocalyptic (eschatological) language to describe the day when God will realize his promises for Israel.

Zechariah 12-14 falls into two halves with a transitional poem between them. The first half (Zechariah 12:2-13:6) describes the triumph of Israel in the wake of their mournful laments and their subsequent cleansing. The second half (Zechariah 14) envisions a day of rejoicing when even the nations of the earth will worship Yahweh and everything will be inscribed “Holy to Yahweh.” The transitional poem (Zechariah 13:7-9) celebrates the redemption of the remnant of Israel. Zechariah 12-14, then, narrates the final disposition of Israel in God’s eschatological agenda.

Structurally, Zechariah 12:1 functions as a superscription for the whole oracle containing a doxological or liturgical affirmation of Yahweh while the term “behold” (hinneh) identifies new sections. The language recalls the creative work of God, particularly in the Isaianic tradition (cf. Isaiah 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 51:13): stretching out the heavens, laying the foundation of the earth, and forming the spirit of humanity within them. This liturgical memory underscores God’s universal claim upon the heavens and earth as well as upon all humanity (including the nations). Further, it emphasizes God’s ability to actualize what is promised concerning Israel. Moreover, and perhaps most significantly, the imagery shapes this new work of God which is the stretching, laying and forming of a new creation—a new humanity upon a new heavens and new earth in a new Jerusalem (cf. Isaiah 65:17ff). God is about to repeat his creative work which means redemption for Israel, the nations and the whole earth.

The Hebrew phrase, literally translated “and [it] shall be on that day…” occurs three times in Zechariah 12-13—at 12:3, 12:9 and 13:2. This is a structural device for the first half of the second oracle in Zechariah 9-14. The first half of the oracle is thereby divided into three messages: (1) the renewed status of Israel, particularly Judah, Jerusalem and the house of David (Zechariah 12:2-8); (2) the mourning of Israel over the pierced one (Zechariah 12:9-13:1); and (3) the cleansing of Israel from idolatry and false prophecy (Zechariah 13:2-6).

Zechariah 12:2 is a thematic or thesis sentence for the first movement within Zechariah 12-13. Judah and Jerusalem will be besieged by the nations but the nations will stagger from their encounter as a person drunk with wine. As the succeeding verses recount, this will be a “day,” that is, an eschatological or apocalyptic day. It is the vision of an ultimate future, the goal of God’s work in Israel. It is an “end-time” vision of the “day” of redemption.

On that day (12:3), Jerusalem will be an “immovable rock.” The nations will hit a brick wall. The nations are powerless before Jerusalem.

On that day (12:4-5), Yahweh will blind the horses and their riders from among the nations but will benevolently and graciously keep a watchful eye upon Judah. The leaders of Judah will recognize that Yahweh is the God of Jerusalem.

On that day (12:6-7), the leaders of Judah will consume the surrounding peoples like grass in a wildfire or a firepot deposited in a woodpile. Jerusalem will be safe. Yahweh will preserve the homes of Judah, the house of David and Jerusalem.

On that day (12:8), Yahweh will protect those who live in Jerusalem so that weakest will be as strong as David and the house of David like God. The Davidic promise, the assurance of king who will reign over Israel, is as certain as God is. Israel’s experience will be like the Exodus when the Angel of the Lord led them out of Egypt and into the promised land (Exodus 32:34; 33:2).

Israel will experience a new Exodus, a new creation; a new birth of freedom in the land God promised Abraham. Jerusalem is preserved, Judah is renewed and Israel once again lives in the land free from the oppression of the surrounding nations. This is the eschatological hope of Israel

The bloody stress of the Civil War strained relationships between northern and southern members of the Stone-Campbell Movement to a breaking point. While sectional attitudes created tension as well as the diverse response to participation in the war, the gut-wrenching reality–as Lipscomb saw it–was that northern brethren were more interested in high-salaried preachers, worldly buildings and higher education than they were in feeding the hungry and clothing the naked among their southern brothers and sisters. This, perhaps more than most other strifes, created a gap between north and south in the postbellum era.

Lipscomb penned a brief but pointed article on “fellowship” which charged northern churches with indifference toward the suffering of the south. More than indifference, it charged that they had a preference for their own self-interests rather than “fellowship” with the south.

For Lipscomb, “fellowship” in this context was more than shared beliefs, it was benevolent action. It was not about agreed opinions or common “tenets of religion,” but a “mutual, kindly feeling and love one member of the body of Christ” has for another. While the north fretted about the potential loss of “fellowship” with the south, Lipscomb asked: “Now, brethren, what Christian fellowship really exists throughout the Churches of Christ?” What fellowship exists when southern disciples go hungry and starve? Where there is no “Christian beneficence,” there is no fellowship.

Based on his perceptions of how northern disciples had responded to his earlier pleas for help, he “naturally conclude[s] you have not much fellowship for us, when we are too poor to be of service to you.”

The text of the article is copied from Bobby Valentine’s contribution to Hans Rollmann’s Restoration Movement Lipscomb webpage. The article appears under the title “Fellowship” in the Gospel Advocate 8 (22 May 1866) 335-336.

Fellowship in ancient days referred not to an agreement in theories or tenets of religion, but to the mutual, kindly feeling and love one member of the body of Christ had for another. They exhibited their fellowship by aiding and helping one another with their substance and by deeds of good service to those in need. There seems to be a fear that the fellowship, so-called, of brethren North and South will be interrupted. Now, brethren, what Christian fellowship really exists throughout the Churches of Christ? An agreement in certain articles of faith and theories of religion? I doubt not that the demons and spirits of the wicked in hell have just as much fellowship as this. If we wish to have fellowship one with another, we must be willing to impart of our subsistence to aid those that are in suffering and need. Our brother writes that he has heard his children cry for bread, when he was not able to satisfy their hunger with bread. Another, “I with my family, have set down to our meals (?) with only potatoes and syrup (sorghum molasses) to eat.” These were worthy preaching brethren that wrote these things, not for publication, but in reply to questions propounded them as to their ability to devote their time to preaching. Now what benefit is it to these men, and thousands of others in their condition, to say we have fellowship for them, but never impart of our substance to relieve the hunger and nakedness of their families and themselves? The heartless selfishness of the age has corrupted and perverted the spirit of Christian beneficence so that professed Christians, we fear, give more with a view of attaining some ulterior selfish end than from a pure spirit of Christian fellowship. But all of our professions of love to God, all of our gifts by the thousand and tens of thousands for schools, meeting-houses, and such like, notwithstanding they may acquire for us great names with men, in the sight [p. 336] of God are but empty, hypocritical pretences, so long as we see our brethren have need and fail to relieve their necessities. If our brethren North wish to form and cement the bonds of lasting fellowship between themselves and their brethren South, the true, scriptural, effectual way is open and inviting. We appealed to you for relief for Bro. Smith, of Ga., a man of unexceptionable character in every respect, a man who has given thirty-six years of his life, almost at his own charges, to the cause of Christ, who, in his old age, with a large family of orphaned grand-children upon his hands, is impoverished by no wrong or imprudence of his. Our appeal was almost wholly in vain. We naturally conclude you have not much fellowship for us, when we are too poor to be of service to you. Bro. Smith’s necessities will, to some extent, at least, be supplied by our churches in Tennessee. We will subject the feelings of no more of our brethren to the unpleasant publicity to which we subjected his. But if any wish to exhibit true fellowship to their suffering brethren, we will give the names of such as need, on application.

The situation in the South through 1866 and for several years thereafter was critical. The hungry, naked and homeless were present in overwhelming numbers. The War had devastated the country. I think this is one reason we see a constant stream of small blurbs from Lipscomb in the 1866 Gospel Advocate on the poor and the responsibility of Christians to share with others.

In addition, there is a not-so-subtle protest against wealthy religion and how it fosters something other than the kingdom of God. In the following two blurbs–both appearing on the same page (March 27, 1866, p. 205)–we see the two themes in juxtaposition.  The first is titled “Giving,” but the second is untitled.

The two seem related.  Lipscomb encourages a private, daily sharing of resources instead of a public, occasional large gift. The former arises out of a lifestyle but the latter arises out of a desire for reward. The former is the daily life of a Christian but the latter is more tuned to the formal religion with its love of a holy place that is “worldly.” The former practices the gospel in sharing with the poor but the latter practices the religion of building and forms.  I think this all sounds a bit too familiar.

Perhaps the two blurbs are not connected in Lipscomb’s own mind as they are in mine. See what you think.

It seems to me, as well, that there are hidden agendas in his words.  There is a class consciousness present (maybe even class envy?) as well as a latent sectionalism. The Civil War with its wealth and sectional dimensions still lies in the background. Moreover, one hears the plea for simplicity in life and worship as the key to faithful obedience to the will of God.

First blurb, “Giving”:

He who wants to be able to do a great amount of good before he does any, will die without benefitting his race.  “Do good as opportunity offers,” is Heaven’s law. He who takes an interest only in doing good on a large scale, generally does it for the sake of display. He who does good for the sake of obeying God and benefitting the oppressed and afflicted, will relieve the wants of the needy in the quiet, humble, unobserved walks of life, wherever he may find them. Will avoid all ostentation and publicity in giving. The reason it is so much easier to raise means for a public charity than a private one, is because the greater portion of the human family wish to be seen of men in their giving, hence will give publicly when they refuse to add more needy and deserving private objects of charity. The true Christian acts not so. “When thou doest alms, let not they left hand know what thy right hand doeth; that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father, who seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly.” God has never promised to reward alms that are done openly. We should not await to be able to give largely before we give. A pittance, a kind word, an encouraging smile, a cup of cold water, in the Master’s name, to the suffering, distressed, weary, faint-hearted children of misfortune and sorrow, comes in remembrance before God, and verily, has its reward.”

Second blurb:

A letter from Hannibal,Missouri, contains the following: “Brother Wilkes appeared at Palmyra for trial on Monday last, to answer to the charge brought against him, viz: Preaching the Gospel. The man who had sworn to the fact, did not appear, consequently the suit was dismissed. When he first informed against  Bro. Wilkes, he charged him simply with preaching. When asked what he preached, he replied the gospel. He was then asked, “What is the Gospel?” He frankly answered, he did not know.”

So it goes. Why is it that zealous religionists do not know what the Gospel of Christ is? Ask almost any one you meet, of any denomination, and you get no answer. Is it because the preachers are so indefinite in their discussions that is is impossible to learn? They are, then, blind leaders of the blind. The prevailing ignorance is almost lamentable. It is appears to be the popular feeling that anything will answer to save a sinner. A large house of worship, called a church, a grand organ, and music by a choir, rented pews, respectability, a handsome preacher, a soulless sermon, containing no [sic] one word of Scriptural instruction, a ritual unknown to the New Testament–performed by a  clerical dignitary, and an exclusive and selfish spirit, seem to satisfy the longings of such, and they are legion as love to worship? In “a worldly, holy place.” When will a dying world learn that the gospel itself, in its original simplicity and beauty, as found in the New Testament, is, alone, “the power of God under the salvation of every one that believes” and obeys it.