John Mark Hicks

Zechariah sees a man with a measuring line in his hand. He is about to measure the length of Jerusalem’s borders, partly for the purpose of erecting a wall around it. Jerusalem needs protection from its enemies. Though Pax Persiana has brought peace among the nations, this does not secure Jerusalem from its regional enemies (cf. Nehemiah 2:7-10; Ezra 3:3; 8:31). Jerusalem is a small city without resources for its own protection. It needs a wall.

Though the man is commissioned to measure Jerusalem and prepare for the building of the temple (cf. Zechariah 1:16), Yahweh denies the builders a wall for Jerusalem. The wall represented, at this point in Judah’s history, a lack of trust in Yahweh’s protection and it also limited the size of the city. Yahweh has bigger plans for Jerusalem than any wall will permit. Yahweh wanted Jerusalem to have a larger vision for itself than it could imagine.

City walls would delimit the population; it would restrict the number of people who could live there. The message of Zechariah envisions a time when the city would overflow with people and animals. The habitation of Jerusalem would far exceed anything in the past or present. God intends to renew life in the city, but a city without walls.

Yahweh will be a “wall of fire” around Jerusalem—it does not need a wall. This language evokes Exodus imagery, particularly the pillar of fire that protected Israel from Egyptian pursuit (Exodus 14:23-25). God is the wall that surrounds the city. Divine presence protects the city because Yahweh “will be the glory within” it. The glory of the Lord is the dwelling, communing presence of God among his people (Exodus 24:17). The hope of exilic Israel was the return of the glory of God to the temple (Ezekiel 43:1-5) and Zechariah’s message promises it. God will again live in Jerusalem.

The report of the vision in Zechariah 2:1-5 is followed by two oracles: (1) the invitation to return to Jerusalem (2:6-9) and (2) the invitation to rejoice over God’s redemptive plan (2:10-12). The first oracle is both a call for return and an assurance of divine judgment against the nations. The second oracle is the assurance of divine presence that contains a promise for the nations.

The first invitation is two imperatives (“flee” and “escape”) followed by two rationales (“for”). The imperatives are parallel—“flee from the land of the north” is parallel with “escape, you who live in the Daughter of Babylon.” The “land of the north” is a common way of referring to Mesopotamia as the armies from that region approached Palestine from the north. While the primary referent is Babylon, it appears that this is an invitation not only for Jews in Babylon but also for those who had been scattered to the “four winds” by the four horns (second vision). Israel and Judah were not only exiled in Assyrian and Babylon but they were also scattered to Egypt, Ammon, Moab and Edom (cf. Jeremiah 40:11-12; 43:7).

The reason why they should return from the Diaspora (the scattering) is because Yahweh sent the angel of the Lord to the nations to subvert them. The result will be that their slaves will topple those governments. Because the nations treated Israel maliciously (with evil, 1:15) and plundered them, the slaves of those nations will now plunder them. The future of the earth lies with Judah and Jerusalem; it does not lie with the nations, even Persia. God does not invest in Empires to embody his kingdom upon the earth. Israel is the “apple of [God’s] eye”—Yahweh identifies with his people. His covenant faithfulness means that God will always love his people.

When the nations fall, then all the earth will know that Yahweh sent his angel against the nations. Even the nations themselves will confess that Yahweh is God.

The second invitation is a dual imperative: “shout and be glad.” Judah and Jerusalem (the daughter of Zion) are called to rejoice because God is coming to live among them again. The joy of this divine coming in glory—the moment when God again takes up residence in Jerusalem—is heightened by the astounding promise that the nations “will be joined with Yahweh in that day and will become my people.”

Amazingly, even surprisingly, the nations will become the people of God (though this was promised in earlier prophets as well, cf. Isaiah 19:25). The promise made to Israel in Leviticus 26:11-12, that God will live and walk among his people, is now promised to all nations. When the nations become the people of God, God will live and dwell among them. When Israel sees this happen they will know that Yahweh sent the angel of the Lord to them.

Yahweh has chosen Jerusalem. But he did not choose a Jerusalem with walls and boundaries. He chose a place to which the nations would come. He chose a city where the nations would experience the dwelling of God upon the earth. Yahweh inherits the land of Judah—he makes it holy by his presence, and he invites the nations to dwell upon the earth with him.

Israel is called to rejoice in this promise because in this Israel fulfills its mission to the world. They are a people through whom God will bless all nations. Israel is to rejoice in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. In “that day” Israel and the nations will become one people of God and God will live among them.

The city without walls that Zechariah envisions is a city without boundaries. It is a city into which the nations are invited and the whole earth participates in the reality of the kingdom of God. Jerusalem has no walls because it is an open city for all nations. The scattering of Israel ultimately bears fruit in the gathering of the nations by which God blesses all nations through Israel.

The third vision ends with a call for universal silence before Yahweh (Zechariah 2:13). God has roused himself from his heavenly dwelling place to fulfill his promise. The earth, literally “all flesh,” must “be still” before the God who is about to act. All flesh bows before the Lord of Hosts.

“Let everything that breathes praise Yahweh” (Psalm 150:6).

Following the feeding of the 4,000 in the Decapolis on the eastern side of the Galilean Sea, Jesus and his disciples crossed over to the other side on the western shore, probably near Magdala. Jesus is now back among the Jewish villages of Galilee and immediately he faces opposition.

Some Pharisees continue their argument with him as they probed the origin of his authority in miracle-working and teaching. Earlier in Mark Jewish leaders had questioned his authority to forgive sin (Mark 2:6) and his breaking of the Sabbath (Mark 2:24). Jewish leaders fromJerusalem attributed his authority over demons to Satan (Mark 3:22).

In light of Jesus’ kingdom ministry of teaching and healing, Galilean Pharisees wanted proof. What is the “sign from heaven” that you have authority to do these things? It appears that they are not simply asking for a miracle. Jesus has done many of those and in their presence. They wanted something clear and unequivocal. Perhaps they wanted him to prove his case in some kind of legal preceding or disputation. More likely, the addition of “from heaven” is a demand that Jesus given proof through a clear demonstration such as the opening of the heavens. Perhaps they wanted God to speak and authenticate Jesus’ ministry. It appears that they will not accept anything less than that.

In Matthew (16:4) and Luke (11:29) Jesus suggests that they will receive such a sign when Jesus is raised from the dead but Mark does not include this response. Instead Jesus simply denies their request. If kingdom miracles are not sufficient, then there will be no opening of heaven to persuade those whose hearts are already hardened against the kingdom of God.

Jesus did not say this in anger although he has been previously angered by their hard hearts (Mark 3:5). Rather, “he sighed deeply in his spirit.” This term (anastenazas) is related to the word Mark used when Jesus prayed over the deaf-mute in Mark 7:34 but here it is intensified. It is a sigh located deep within his soul. Jesus grieves their stubbornness and their insistence on a sign. He grieves their brokenness.It is as if Jesus weeps over these Pharisees who are so obstinate, just as he will weep over Jerusalem itself.

Jesus is not interested in arguing with the Pharisees. He gets in a boat to cross the lake again and this time ends up in Bethsaida (Mark 8:22)—a city on the edge of the Decapolis but also the native lakeside village of Peter and Andrew. Jesus, seemingly, leaves Galilee in a hurry as the disciples even forget to bring bread.

During the trip across the latke Jesus, in effect, debriefs his disciples. We only get a brief snipet. It is the caution to be wary of the “yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.” As in Mark 3:6 where the Pharisees and Herodians conspire together to kill Jesus, the two are joined together in this warning. Whether it is religious leaders or political ones, their yeast has a way of leavening the whole lump. What is the yeast? What is the problem with the Pharisees and Herodians as pictured in the Gospel of Mark? Their power, greed and stubbornness subvert the virtues of the kingdom of God. Jesus warns his disciples to disengage from such power struggles and to steer clear of such agendas.

But the disciples are confused. They think Jesus is upset about the lack of bread. Their minds—perhaps even mutual blaming is involved—are on the lack of food. They have no provisions. They are worried about hunger while Jesus is warning them about power.

Their worry brings them to the same place as the Pharisees and Herodians. Their worries about bread lead them to the same stubbornness (hard hearts) that characterizes the religious and political leaders of Israel (Mark 3:5 with 8:17). Though they have been with Jesus for many months now, perhaps years at this point, their eyes are still blinded and their ears are still dull, just like many others (cf. Mark 4:12). It seems that the disciples have not made much progress. They are still in danger of the power and greed agendas that characterize their religious and political leaders. But the kingdom of God has a different agenda; a different yeast infects it.

Since they are so concerned about bread, Jesus reminds them that he fed  5,000 and 4,000 we a few loaves. What is Jesus’ point? The disciples know the events—they distinctly remember the abundance of provision that was left over from the feedings. Why is this an important point for Jesus?

The disciples apparently were consumed with worry about bread, about food. They feared hunger; perhaps they blamed each other. We might imagine that the argued over who forgot the bread. They were distracted from the kingdom agenda by their worries and arguments. So much so that they could not hear the warning of Jesus. In fact, that yeast had already infected them. They were consumed with earthly worry rather than the king’s business.

Jesus reminds them of the miracles as if to say, “If I fed 5,000 and then 4,000 with only a few loaves and fish, we need not worry about whether we have any bread or not in the boat. We have more important things to think about and do.”

Kingdom people don’t worry about bread, but they are alarmed by the “yeast of the Pharisee and the Herodians.” Though God feeds us we are always in danger of succumbing to the siren call of power and greed for more.

“Do you still not understand?” Jesus asked. I think he is still asking and we are still worrying about bread when the dangers of power and greed in religious and political leadership are the real problem.

Jesus resumed his kingdom ministry when he returned to the sea of Galilee from the regions of Tyre and Sidon. After some time (“in those days”) Jesus was followed by a large crowd (4,000 people) into a remote place where food was not easily accessible. Mark describes this area as a “wilderness” (8:4) and uses a cognate of the term he has previously employed to describe Jesus’ time in the Judean desert (1:12-13), his moments of solitude (1:35, 45) and the previous feeding of the 5,000 (6:31-32, 35).Israel, following Jesus, once again finds themselves in the wilderness.

It is uncertain where this “wilderness” is. Jesus is probably ministering in the Decapolis on the eastern or northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Whatever the region, at the close of the story Jesus gets into a boat and crosses over to “Dalmanutha.” But this  place name is unknown in any other source. The parallel in Matthew (15:39) names it Magadan (which may be another name for Magdala located on the west side of the sea). Presumably, then, Jesus is still on the eastern/northeastern side of the lake in the Decapolis.

As with the feeding of the 5,000 (Mark 6:30-44), the remote location creates a problem. No food is readily accessible for such a large crowd. Many had come from a “long distance” to be with Jesus and they had been there for “three days” without food. These notes may be purely situational in order to describe the desperate situation of the people, but they may also have theological significance about the Gentile mission (“far off”) and typify “three days” in the wilderness just as Jesus was three days in the tomb (cf. Mark 8:31; 14:58; 15:29).

Jesus shares his feelings about the situation with his disciples: “I have compassion on these people.” Loving people entails feeding people as well as teaching them. Compassion moved Jesus to postpone his rest in order to teach the 5,000 (Mark 6:34), but here it moves him to feed them. The missional nature of this event is evident: compassion is part of the motivation for kingdom ministry. We teach and feed people because we love them. To love our neighbor is not only to teach them but to feed them as well.

The disciples, however, are confused by Jesus’ statement. How are they going to feed 4,000 people? Well….duh. One would think that they might remember the previous occasion and trust Jesus. But the disciples can only look at their own resources—they are in the “wilderness.” Food is not available. They only have seven loaves and a “few fish.” But was that not enough previously? And it is enough this time.

The people are asked to “recline”—“sit down” does not give the full impact of this language. This is a festive meal that is characterized by reclining. It is celebratory, relaxed–a meal among friends. Jesus is hosting a banquet for hungry people in the wilderness. Like at the Last Supper (Mark 14:22), as well as the previous feeding of thousands (Mark 6:41), Jesus eucharistically breaks bread at the table with his disciples.

The abundance of the meal is signaled not only by the fact that everyone was satisfied (“filled”) but by the huge amount of leftovers. Seven basketfuls of food remained. But is that not less than in the previous feeding which had twelve basketfuls? Actually, it isn’t. The word for basket in Mark 6:43 refers to something like the size of a lunch box but the word in Mark 8:9 refers to a basket large enough to lift a person over a wall (cf. Acts 9:25). The leftovers could have fed hundreds more. God’s provision is overflowing.

The parallels between the feeding of the 4,000 and the 5,000 raise the question about why the different numbers: twelve “baskets” in Mark 6 and seven “baskets” in Mark 8. Why the difference? It may simply be a factual report, but even then why these “facts”? Are we to suppose the twelve in Mark 6 is a significant symbol for Israel but the number seven has no symbolic meaning? It may be that “seven” symbolizes “wholeness” and inclusiveness and thus symbolizing the Gentile inclusion in this meal.

Some have suggested that the 4,000 included both Jew and Gentile. This is partly based on the fact that this happened in the Decapolis (a Gentile region but where many Jews lived) and the statement many “came from far” may allude to Joshua 9:6, 9 and Isaiah 60:4. This was a typical way of referring to Gentiles (cf. Acts 2:39). Others also note that Mark substituted “giving thanks” (8:6) for “blessing” (6:41) which is more typical of Gentile audiences than Jewish, and that the number seven rather than twelve may represent an inclusive number in contrast with a typically Jewish numeral. Perhaps Mark intends to paint an inclusive picture here that prefigures the Gentile mission though one wonders if he might not been more explicit about it as he was with the Syro-Phoenician woman (7:26). Allusions to Gentile inclusion seem present and it is difficult to imagine that no Gentiles would be present among the 4,000 on the eastern or northeastern side of the lake.

If this is the case, the meal setting points us toward the inclusive nature of the Lord’s table. Jesus takes the bread, gives thanks, breaks it and gives it, just as he does at the Last Supper (Mark 14:22). Mark’s first readers would not miss the literary and linguistic links as well as the theological linkage. After three days, Jesus rose from the dead to host his table in the kingdom of God. Those who are “afar off” are invited to this table as well as the people of Israel. In his compassion Jesus feeds those who have followed him into the wilderness, and he continues to feed disciples today through the Eucharist. Disciples still sit with Jesus at the table.

Parallels between Mark 6 and Mark 8*

*Based on William Lane’s NIC commentary on Mark, p. 271, n. 8.

On April 4, 1967 Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered a courageous speech against the Vietnam War at the Riverside Church in New York City. The speech is a principled statement against war itself.

David Lipscomb, on the eve of the Spanish-American War, offered a principled statement against the “spirit” of war. That “spirit” stands in radical contrast with the “Spirit” of Jesus Christ.

Like King, Lipscomb’s statement rings loudly in our contemporary ears as a call for Christian introspection about the “spirit of war.” Here is part of his editorial statement in the April 28, 1898 Gospel Advocate (p. 269):

War is disastrous to all prosperity and good of a people.  It may for a time create activity in business in preparing for and caring on a conflict, but it must result permanently in more taxes and less to pay with.  The people pay all the cost of war.  But the material injury produced by war is the least harmful of its effects.  The destruction of life and the sorrow of heart it brings to surviving friends and relations appeal more directly to our sympathies since we see the suffering and distress; but above these is the moral and spiritual effect.  War is hurtful to all true moral and spiritual good in people.  These are the highest and most lasting interests of the people.  We do not see the awful results with our natural senses, but they are widespread and lasting.  It is strange that a professed follower of the Son of God can approve of the war spirit for a moment.  It is distressing to see how professed Christians, in and out of Congress, preachers and privates, can be carried away with, and encourage and foment, this spirit of war.  It is contrary to the whole spirit of the religion of Jesus Christ.  When a man professes to be follower of Jesus he professes to try to do like Jesus.  That is what being a Christian means. Every Christian is pledged to what Jesus would do were he in his place.  Just what Jesus would do, were he in person, is what the follower of Jesus must do.  Does any one believe that if Jesus were here he would make war speeches and encourage the spirit of war?  Would Jesus join the army of the United States to fight Spain, or join the army of Spain to fight the United States?  Would he thus fight against himself?  Would he kill and destroy?

Wars and strifes will continue while human governments exist, and God will overrule them for his own purposes; but the Christian’s citizenship is in heaven, and his duty is to perform the offices of love and good will to all men of every color and kindred and nation, but to destroy none.  Jesus sent him into this world as sheep among wolves, to do good for evil, and to pray for them who despitefully use and persecute them.  Jesus did not lay this principle aside in any other troubles and persecutions that came upon him.  His true followers must not do it.  But when men vote to send others to war, they ought to go themselves.  The evil being in participating in the political strifes and conflicts of human governments, drinking in a spirit that is of man not of God.  Unless we have the spirit of Christ, we are none of his.

Both King’s speech and Lipscomb’s editorial are powerful articulations of a Christian perspective. Both, in their own times and circumstances–and neither was perfect or beyond criticism–sought to love their neighbors whatever their “color and kindred and nation.”

To love your neighbor entails loving your enemies. That is the “Spirit” of Christ. Are we his or do we belong to someone or something (like a nation) else?

After the aborted attempt to give his disciples some rest (Mark 6:30-34), Jesus now withdraws from the popularity and press of the crowds in Galilee to the regions of Tyre and Sidon on the Phoenician coast (modern Lebanon). This is not a far journey–only 30-50 miles or so—but Jesus takes his disciples into a Gentile region of northern Palestine. He had done this previously when he crossed the lake of Galilee into the Decapolis (Mark 5:1-20). He was not able to stay there long. This time Jesus goes in the opposite direction toward the Mediterranean Sea.

Importantly, Mark places this story next to the previous discussion of what is “unclean” (7:1-24). Jesus goes to what many would regard as an “unclean region.” The categories of clean/unclean are not boundary markers for Jesus. His entrance into a Gentile region of Palestine reflects his willingness to cross boundaries that restrained others.

Mark uses a formula which indicates that Jesus’ interests are privacy and rest: Jesus “left that place” (cf. 9:30-31) and found a house in which he could spend some private time with his disciples. Perhaps in the predominantly Gentile coastal region Jesus will find some rest and escape the crowds that relentlessly press him in Galilee. Tyre and Sidon are part of the Syrian province of Rome and thus Jesus has crossed political lines (moving from the region of the Herodians who want to kill him [3:6] to a region where, presumably, he would be relatively unknown to the political leaders). But Jesus was not unknown in this region. Mark has already noted that some had already travelled from “Tyre and Sidon” to Galilee for healing (Mark 3:8).

As a result, Jesus’ presence in the “vicinity of Tyre” does not go unnoticed. Desperate people can go to great lengths to find the help they need—especially a parent for a child. A Greek-speaking, Syro-Phonecian mother finds Jesus to beg for the healing of her daughter. Jesus encounters a Gentile mother who intercedes for her daughter.

What does Jesus do with this request? He responds that the children must first eat at the table before the scraps are tossed to the dogs. Does that seem a bit harsh? It is important to recognize the proverbial character of the language. The word “dog” here is not the common derogatory term that represents some kind of hostility. Rather, it is a diminutive, that is, “little dogs” like house dogs or domesticated pets (perhaps functionally equivalent to “puppy”). The proverb refers to the relations within a household; and it is not name calling. Allen Black in his College Press commentary on Mark (p. 137; n. 16) suggests it is like Joe asking Bill whether he should bring up an issue with his wife and Bill responds with the proverb, “Let sleeping dogs lie.” Bill is not calling Joe’s wife a “dog” but is answering the question with a proverb. Jesus does something similar here.

The woman has a quick, spunky, and clever reply which may reflect the Markan intent that we read this story in the light of Jesus’ interest in testing or probing the faith of this mother. The mother is persistent and pushes back for the sake of her daughter. Perhaps he responds with the proverb to see how she will respond. Will her faith persist in her request or will she turn away?

Her response assumes the world that Jesus has pictured. Indeed, she is a house (“little”) dog and does not presume to be one of the children. But even house dogs wander around table waiting for the crumbs that the children may drop. She is asking Jesus for the overflow—the crumbs from the disciple’s rest. Her response touches Jesus and her daughter is healed. Jesus exoricizes the demon from a distance but in response to the faith of this Gentile mother.

Who are the children and who are the dogs in this proverb? William Lane, in his commentary on Mark, suggests that the “children” are the disciples who need rest and the “dogs” are those to whom they minister. The children (disciples) need to eat, that is, they need their rest. There will be a time for others to receive what the need but that time is not now. This may be the primary referent in Mark.

However, most others see a Jewish-Gentile theme here. This is certainly how Matthew interprets this incident (cf. Matthew 15:21-28). Jesus is sent to the Jews first (the children), but ultimately the Gentiles (dogs) will be fed as well. This is not explicit in Mark but it fits a canonical reading of the Christian story as we see the followers of Jesus include the Gentiles in the coming years and Mark’s narrative does anticipate the inclusion of the Gentiles at several points, even prior to this incident. This is not a moment where Jesus decided to help Gentiles because he was awakened to a larger vision of the kingdom by this request. The Markan narrative, as we have seen in previous blogs, is clear about the inclusion of the Gentiles in both the present and eschatologically.

After a period of rest, Jesus returns to the sea of Galilee through the Decapolis, presumably on the eastern side of the lake. Jesus took a circuitous route back through Gentile lands to the lake in order to avoid the crowds in Galilee. Even in the Decapolis, however, the needy await him and his healing ministry resumes. Mark singles out the story of a deaf-mute (or possibly a deaf man who had a speech impediment).

Jesus takes him aside privately—separate from the crowds—to focus his attention on this man. Jesus, perhaps to communicate with this man, uses unique means for healing. He plugs his fingers into the man’s ears and puts his saliva on the man’s tongue. These are powerful symbolic gestures that communicate his intent to heal.

When Jesus prays, he “sighs” (from the verb stenazo) which means to groan in the sense of grieving. Paul uses both the verb and noun (stenagmos) for the painful groanings which the Spirit interprets but we ourselves find it difficult to utter (Romans 8:23, 26). Jesus grieves over the brokenness of the world as he prays for this deaf mute. Jesus feels the pain of the world in which he participates. He sighs with humanity.

Mark highlights this healing with the detail description, using the Aramaic word (ephphatha) for the healing command just as he did with the raising of Jarius’ daughter (Mark 5:41), and the resultant command to not tell anyone. This is the “Messianic secret” theme once again and it is pronounced here as the Markan text moves closer to the announcement that Jesus is the Christ (8:29). But the people cannot keep quiet. They are seeing what Isaiah anticipated (Isaiah 35:5-6). Mark expresses the amazement of the people—“he even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”

The final saying is functionally a praise chorus with three lines. It is the joy of the redeemed and the wonder of those who bear witness.

He has done well,
he makes the deaf to hear,
he makes the mute to speak.

The healing of a ear and mouth was anticipated in Isaiah’s picture of redemption in Isaiah. Moreover, and most significantly, such healings bear witness to a coming time when there will be no more sorrow or sighing (stenagmos in the LXX; Isaiah 35:10). Symbolically—and theologically—the Markan narration has reached a threshold. Jesus’ miracles have mounted in number and scope. He has raised the dead, calmed the chaos of the sea, exercised authority over hostile powers (demons), and restored human dignity to a leper and now to a deaf-mute. He is dispelling the darkeness and renewing joy. He is recreating the world; he is “doing good.”

The miracles are not mere displays of power or simply expressions of compassion. They are divine acts of reversal. They reverse the brokenness of the world—the deaf can hear, the mute can speak, the dead live, chaos is conquered, and the demons are defanged. A new world—the kingdom of God, the reign of God—is emerging. Jesus is the presence of the reign of God in the world which brings healing, peace, justice and righteousness.

As followers of Jesus, we are called to participate in that mission, to participate in reign of God by healing the brokenness of the world and reversing the curse. Disciples of Jesus sigh over the brokenness, pray for the broken and act for their sake.

Zechariah’s second vision continues a theme that was only briefly noted in the first vision, that is, Yahweh is angry with the nations who treated Judah with “evil” (ra’ah; 1:15).

Zechariah, presumably having lowered his eyes to reflect on the first vision, now looks up to see a second vision. Here he sees “four horns.” The angel identifies the horns as the nations that scattered “Judah, Israel and Jerusalem.” It is important to note that the angel includes “Israel” (the northern kingdom) who was scattered by the Assyrian Empire as well as the Babylonian Empire that scattered Judah (the southern kingdom).

“Horns” are ancient symbols of strength. The represent power as the horns of oxen and bulls terrify whomever they encounter. Presumably Zechariah does not see isolated horns floating in the air or lying on the ground, but he sees horns on powerful, terrifying animals. But, in the end, these “horns” will themselves fear the God who opposes them.

There is no need to press the number “four” and attempt to identify four specific enemies. The number four more likely is symbolic of the four ends of the earth (cf. Zechariah 6:5) or the “four winds of the earth” (cf. Zechariah 2:6), that is, the nations were arrayed against the people of God. The whole earth (“four” representing the ends/winds of the earth) opposed and oppressed God’s people from the time of the Divided Monarchy. The nations were always arrayed against the kingdom of God.

Having asked the angel what the “horns” are, Yahweh shows Zechariah the “four blacksmiths.” They are the agents of destruction; they will defeat the nations that scattered Judah. Just as the nations lifted their horns against Judah, so Yahweh will lift the hammers of his blacksmiths against the nations.

This is no contest. The nations are no match for Yahweh. God is sovereign over the nations. He used them to punish Judah but in their zeal they treated Judah maliciously. Now God judges the nations. This is another example of the great reversal theme that appears throughout Scripture. God reverses the fortunes of Israel; Yahweh liberates them again by defeating the nations. It is another Exodus of sorts as God once delivered Israel from Egypt (one of the nations).

Judah need not fear. God will terrify the nations and they will no longer terrify Judah.

In Second Temple Judaism Israel still lived under the burden of Roman oppression. The nations still had the upper hand. But the hope of Israel was that one would come to strike the nations, rule them and turn the kingdom of this world into the kingdom of the Christ. That is the story of the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ—a vision seen by John and heard by the church. It is still the hope of the people of God.

In 1896, the people of the United States elected William McKinley (Republican) over William Jennings Bryan (Democrat). McKinley lead a voting block of wealthy business people, skilled factory workers, large farm owners and professionals located mainly in the Northeast, Midwest and West coast that defeated Bryan’s Southern and Rocky Mountain constituency. McKinley defeated Bryan 51% to 47% in the popular vote and 271 electoral votes to 176.

Below is David Lipscomb’s editorial comment on the election in the November 12, 1896 issue of the Gospel Advocate. Lipscomb saw this election as a victory for the wealthy and in injustice to the poor. Siding with the poor and the laborer, Lipscomb calls Christians to act justly and remember the poor.

Christians “have duties to fulfill with reference to all questions that arise in society—that is, to stand on the side of right and justice, to study the moral questions that arise in the affairs of the world, and warn as to the principles of right and justice.  These, in the end, must prevail; and he who teaches these benefits humanity.”

 Christians can exert a moral and restraining influence upon the ungodly by teaching moderation and unselfishness.  It is not only their duty to teach right; it is also their duty to teach that persistence in wrong must bring ruin to the wrongdoer. Wrong may run a smooth course for a time, but destruction is sure in the end.  Wrong and injustice cannot permanently prosper….

Jesus taught the dignity and honor of labor.  He would be greatest of all, let him be servant of all.  His sympathies were with the poor, the laborer, those humble in station, not with the rich or exalted.  In the end the dignity and honor of labor must prevail and its rights be vindicated.  Those possessed of riches may deal justly and cease to legislate for capital and help labor.  That is Christian, and would be wise policy, and would prevent violent conflict.  If they pursue a selfish course, then a violent convulsion must be the end.

Christians may do good to the world not by entering into strifes and conflicts over the questions that arise in this contest, but by teaching justice and right and by impressing the lesson that the selfish accumulation of money or the selfish exercise of power, without regard to the rights and needs of others, but lead to a violent end.  Things will be righted.  God gives us the invitation to right them and be blessed.  If we do not right them, he will.  He rights wrongs often by making wrongdoers destroy each other.  Wickedness destroys wickedness.”

Lipscomb is not apolitical in the sense of disengaged from the world. Rather, Christians are to engage the culture in which they live and promote good wherever possible.

Lipscomb’s “Things will be righted” sounds very similar to N. T. Wright’s “put things to right.” They share a similar eschatology, especially about new heavens and new earth. Lipscomb, however, does not think this is simply about eschatology in the sense of a “one day this will happen” (any more than Wright does). God calls us to right wrongs along side of God’s own work. God is active in the world to “put things to right” even now as God permits “wickedness” to destroy “wickedness.”

Zechariah sees a rider on a “red” (more like reddish-brown) horse among myrtle trees in a “glen.” Behind this rider is an indefinite number of horses with a range of colors which reflect the variety of horses within the Persian Empire. Scouting is the only function given these horses (and their unidentified riders)—they “patrol the earth.” Their patrol reports that the “the whole earth remains at peace.”

This is imperial language; it is the langue of the Persian Empire. Scouts range throughout the earth and report back to the king on the status of the empire. The empire is at peace. The Persians have defeated Babylon and quelled recent rebellions (specifically one in 520 BCE). In 519 BCE the empire is at “peace.”

But Zechariah is not looking at an earthly imperial court. On the contrary, he sees an angelic council. The rider on the “red” horse is the “angel of the Lord.” He receives the report from the other riders. They report “peace.” The word means “settled” or “at rest” and is often used negatively (see Isaiah 30:7; Ezekiel 16:49; Jeremiah 48:11). This is not shalom. This peace is the result of the sins of the empire, and this imperial peace was accomplished through injustice and inhumanity. This kind of peace Yahweh will “shake” as Haggai promised (Haggai 1:21). God will judge the nations (Zechariah 1:18-21). The “peace” of the nations is not the shalom of the reign of God.

The angel of the Lord does not think the situation is one of shalom. After receiving the report, the angel intercedes for Judah and Jerusalem with a lament. “How long, O Lord of hosts, will you withhold mercy” from your people? Israel’s lament has continued for 70 years (605-536 which dates from the first deportation to the first return of the exiles, or 587-516 which dates from the destruction of the temple to its rebuilding, or perhaps it is simply a symbolic number for divine anger against a sanctuary). Here the angel speaks for the people and voices their pain before Yahweh.

The lament assumes that Yahweh determines the shalom of Jerusalem and not the Persian Emperor. Yahweh reigns over the earth, not the Emperor. God is sovereign over situation and thus the angel of Yahweh appeals to the one who can act in mercy toward Jerusalem. It does not lie within Persia’s hands.

Yahweh responds with mercy and zeal. God is both zealous for Jerusalem and angry with the nations. God is jealous–passionate zeal; God is committed to Israel. He will show mercy. He remembers his covenant, faithful love toward Jerusalem. At the same time Yahweh is angry with the nations because though the administered his justice they did it with “evil” (ra’ah)—they acted with malice, cruelty, and inhumanity. Their injustice angered Yahweh. God will show mercy to Israel and judge the nations.

God will renew the prosperity of Jerusalem. In fact, it will be a veritable urban explosion. The cities of Judah will overflow with people, prosperity and divine presence. The temple will be rebuilt. God will choose Jerusalem again and return in mercy to Judah. Post-exilic Judah felt abandoned but now Zechariah reassures them that God has chosen them.

Zechariah actually sees a new exodus. Myrtle trees are associated with the Feast of Tabernacles (Leviticus 23:44; Nehemiah 8:15)—one kind of wood used to make booths (tents) that represented Israel’s wilderness wandering. Moreover, the word for “glen” may refer to a pre-exilic garden in the Kidron valley (2 Kings 25:4; located between the two mountains mentioned later) but the word also has Exodus and Creation overtones. For example, it is the word for “depths” in Exodus 15:5 as well as the waters of Psalm 107:24. What God is about to do is not only a new exodus; it is also a new creation. God is going to do something so wondrous that the language of creation appropriately describes it.

But is the rebuilt temple of 516 the fulfillment of Zechariah’s vision? Certainly it is a provisional one that is immediate to Zechariah’s situation. However, reading Zechariah canonically, there is more. Second Temple Judaism thought they were still in exile as they lived under Roman oppression in the first century. The promises of the prophets, including Zechariah, had not yet been fully realized. Second Temple Judaism still waited for the reality that Zechariah sees here.

Some argue that the angel of Yahweh is a Christophany. Perhaps. It would not be in Zechariah’s mind, of course, but we do not expect the prophets to fully understand what they see. But more to the point is that the fulfillment is ultimately—thinking canonically—Christological.

God ultimately returns to the temple…in the flesh. God pours out the Spirit on the new temple of God…his people. Through incarnation and Spirit-outpouring God blesses the nations. God will come again to the earth to fully renew it and heal the nations in the new heaven and new earth, in the new Jerusalem.

But this is only the first of eight visions…..more to come.

The visions of Zechariah renew the Abrahamic promise to post-exilic Israel—God intends to bless Israel so that all nations might be blessed.

The word of Yahweh given to Zechariah for the people is “Return to me, and I will return to you.” This message comes to Zechariah through a series of eight night visions on February 15, 519 BCE during the reign of the Persian Emperor Darius the Great (1:7). The eight visions communicate the basic message in a dramatic way through what Zechariah sees.

Scholars generally agree that the eight visions have a chiastic structure though the interpretations vary somewhat. This may be pictured in the following way:

1. Myrtle Trees – Peace among the Nations in the Earth (1:7-17).

2. Four Horns – Judgment of the Nations for their Evil (1:8-21).

3. Measuring Line – The Habitation of Jerusalem (2:1-13).

4. Joshua – Restoration of the Priestly Line (3:1-10).

5. Zerubbabel – Restoration of the Royal Line (4:1-14).

6. Flying Scroll – Removal of Sin from Israel (5:1-4).

7. Woman in a Basket – Removal of Sin from the Nations (5:5-11).

8. Four Chariots – Peace among the Nations in the Earth (6:1-8).

The visions begin and end with peace among the nations. The first peace, however, is illusionary because the land of Israel and Jerusalem are still lamenting their loss. In contrast the final peace is the result of God’s renewal of his grace toward Israel and Jerusalem.

The second and seventh visions focus on the nations as well. While the first vision judges them for their malicious treatment of God’s people, the seventh vision sees the removal of the wickedness of the nations that prepares for peace on the earth among the nations.

The third and sixth visions focus on Israel in their land. The resettlement and prosperity of Jerusalem in the third vision is connected to the removal of sin from the land by the return of God to the temple.

The fourth and fifth visions are the restoration of the royal and priestly lines to Israel in a functioning theocratic and cultic (temple) nation. God again reigns from the temple in Jerusalem and heals the wounds of his people.

The visions, then, move us from a picture of the earth (nations) through the Holy Land (Israel) to the cultic center of Israel (the temple in Jerusalem) and then out of Jerusalem through the Holy Land to the whole earth. God is moving among the nations to show mercy to the land of Israel through renewing temple presence in order that Israel might be a blessing to the nations (the whole earth).

The visions of Zechariah renew the Abrahamic promise to post-exilic Israel—God intends to bless Israel so that all nations might be blessed.

In the coming weeks, I will post on each vision.

“A stingy church cannot be a true church. It cannot be rich in faith and trust in God. It cannot be rich in works to benefit and bless man or to honor and glorify God. It cannot continue rich in this world’s goods. A stingy man may gather together and hold for a time, money and property. A stingy man with millions hoarded is a poor man. A poor, stingy, sordid soul may have property, but he lives a pinched, poverty-stricken life, watching and caring for and adding to his money, but enjoying nothing of it. He does not enjoy it, but it is an oppressive burden to him. He may cling to it while he lives; but when death loosens his clutches upon it, his family soon scatter it to the four winds, and come down to grinding poverty. It works the same with churches as with individuals….”

“All the good a man gets out of what passes through his hands here is from what he uses for good in serving God. What he properly uses for himself and for his own family, if they are serving God or if it is helping them to serve God, is as much used in the service of God as what he gives to others to help them. Everything that is used for selfish purposes and to promote the fleshly desires of himself or family is lost, is worse than lost. It is positive injury and hurt to himself and family. True happiness is found here on earth, not in the gratification of the desires and appetites of the flesh. A larger proportion of those who seek happiness by gratifying the flesh in a few years tire of the disappointments and burdens, and a greater proportion of this class seek forgetfulness of life’s evils and burdens in suicide than of any other class.  Churches, like individuals,  to enjoy life and prosper, must be liberal and self-denying in their labor and in the use of their means in doing good to others. This is the only true good to be gotten out of property, talent, or ability of any kind. The man who uses his means and opportunities otherwise squanders his means and trifles with his opportunities. He is a spiritual profligate who hoards his money, keeps his property and refuses to so use it as to abound to his spiritual account at the last day.

“These are called ‘strenuous times.’ This means the struggle for existence has become sharp and fierce. A man must ‘hustle’ if he makes a living for himself and family. If he is indolent and idle he and his family must want. They will suffer for food and raiment. These strenuous times affect the spiritual conditions as much as the pecuniary. If a church is not active, alive, energetic in using its means and opportunities to save and help others, it will come to penury and want. By virtue of its indolence and indifference to its own growth and the salvation of others, it will take the dry rot and die.”

David Lipscomb, “Use of Means and Opportunities,” Gospel Advocate (19 December 1907), 807.