New Thoughts (07/27/11-08/03/11)
Before I begin my considerations on the passage at hand, there are one or two items I choose to comment on, albeit that they are rather out of place here. The first of these concerns Matthew 16:28, the which arises amongst the parallel verses for the present passage. As I did my study of that verse some three years ago, I will simply address the thought that occurred to me during my preparations here. The verse speaks of how some who were there listening on the day Jesus spoke would not taste death until they had seen the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. This point was made in a relatively private session, at the time when Peter expressed his understanding that Jesus was the Son of God (Mt 16:16). Still, this seems a rather marvelous statement to make, and for us as we continue to await the return of the Christ it must seem rather a stretch for Jesus to suggest some of these first disciples would remain alive at the time.
Now, there are a number of ways we might resolve this conflict. We might, in the first place, change our conception of what it means to be alive. We tend to assume life is meant as speaking of the physical life we currently enjoy. But, the Life which is in Jesus clearly transcends the bounds of our mortal span. Were Jesus speaking of life in this sense, though, it would seem more reasonable to say that all then with Him were going to see this event. The ‘some’ would seem to apply more naturally to those who would be pleased to see His coming, as all would see it, but only the portion would see it as a blessing. For the vast majority, it seems clear that this event will be the final judgment, the verdict rendered with no hope of appeal.
Another way to resolve the seeming impossibility would be to associate the coming of which Jesus speaks with His appearance before being taken up in the clouds in the Ascension (Ac 1:9-11). The sense of that passage is that they had witnessed Him going, and that this same sort of imagery would be found in His return at some unspecified later date. It would seem, then, that this is likewise an unsatisfactory understanding of what Jesus intended to convey.
That leads me to go back and look at my thoughts when I was actually studying this passage, and I see the same curiosity, the same assessing and rejecting of various possible interpretations of what Jesus meant. What I do not see in my notes on that passage, though, is anything resembling the thought that occurred to me most recently. What strikes me in considering the verse anew on this occasion is that Jesus may not have been speaking of physical sight. What do I mean? I mean that He may have been indicating that form of seeing associated with the prophets. That would not seem unreasonable. Prophets down through the ages had seen His coming, and we understand that some saw primarily the period of His presence as Suffering Servant, whereas others foresaw the Coming of the King. It is clear enough that Jesus must be referring to that latter event, given that He stood with these men in fulfillment of the former.
If this is the intended meaning, all begins to make sense as regards that impossible statement. Yes, certain of His disciples, His appointed apostles, would have clear vision of that coming time. One need look no farther than the Revelation of John to recognize that at least this one had visions of exactly that time of Christ’s return. It’s not difficult to imagine that others among the Twelve, and perhaps even among the larger collection of Christ’s disciples at that point, had also experienced certain revelatory visions of that event that yet remains future to us.
Can this resolution of the conundrum be put forward as certainty? Of course not. Yet, it suits. It offers a means of comprehending the Truth Jesus seeks to impart without getting caught out by the seeming impossibility of His message. That, in turn, gives me a degree of hope as regards this present passage, for there is much here that is confusing, much that seems to imply error on the part of the authors, if not on the part of their Subject. These are things that rattle. They could be allowed to lead to an uprising of doubt, but it need not be so. This is the message I find for myself in the new thoughts given me on that older passage. Answers will come, if they come, in His time and by His chosen means. Yet, He is faithful. He is not inclined to leave us to our doubts and confusions, except as such periods of doubt and confusion may serve in the end to strengthen our faith.
It must be clear to anybody reading through my preparatory efforts on this passage that even in the few days spent on that effort, my views on things has changed repeatedly. There is much to be confused about here. As I noted somewhere along the way, this is quite probably the most troubling passage I have yet stumbled upon. There are questions that arise from it, the which seem to defy resolution. And, it may well be that for the present, they truly shall defy resolution. Yet, they need not be a cause for stumbling, for arriving at some crisis of faith. I shall quite likely find myself perusing other resources, the thoughts of better men, as I scuffle with these matters. Yet, even should this fail to deliver me of an answer, I shall not be sorely tried by the fact. Scripture stands inerrant, whatever my feeble opinions may be. Scripture stands as inerrant, and therefore, where error appears, I must assume my understanding is not yet complete.
Again, I need only consider this fresh insight delivered years after the question arose. I cannot claim a final resolution, even on that matter, yet I find a certain satisfaction in having a workable theory, an explanation that fits the message and allows it to stand as a True message. God is able. He is able to cause Scripture to be put forth without error. He is able to so speak to and direct His messengers as to hedge them off from every error. He is able, frankly, to do so even with me, if I will but listen. Let me be immediately and abundantly clear: I am not claiming any sort of inerrancy for myself. I am only pointing to the power of God to guard my heart and mind. It is He Who is – indeed must be – inerrant. My own accuracy is surely subjected to my own futility as a fallen creature. As sin ever and always manages to pollute the best efforts of man to please God and to obey God, so it must be even with my efforts here. Yet, I can hope for these insights God provides, and I can be glad of the reminder that He is ever with me in these times of study. I am not just talking to myself. I am not just laying out my own thoughts for the benefit of my own ego. Indeed, I am painfully aware just how often the thoughts I express in these studies rise to heights well beyond my own capacity. It is only pride that ever allows me to think otherwise. I pray it is not pride that causes me to think that there is anything here of value.
Another diversion: When Jesus interjects that comment as to the fate of the Pharisees, He asks (rhetorically) how they shall escape the sentence of hell (Mt 23:33). That word ‘sentence’ translates the Greek kriseoos. This shares with the word brought into our English language as crisis, a term I recall considering once as it might relate to the cross. It does not, by the way, at least not in any etymological sense. However, considering the definition of the Greek term, as indicating a sundering, a trial or a separation, one sees a certain distinction from what we typically think of as a crisis. There is a shared sense of trial, to be sure, but I don’t think we would typically consider a crisis as being a sundering or a separation. True, how one weathers a crisis may separate the men from the boys, but it’s just not the way we would typically think of the term.
Interestingly, the primary definition given to this term in Webster’s Dictionary concerns ‘the turning point for better or worse in an acute disease or fever’. Well, I dare say that sin is the worst of all disease in man, and to be sure, that final judgment leading either to an eternity in hell or an eternity in heaven is surely the turning point for better or worse!
Let me just fold all that back into the comment Jesus makes here. How shall you escape the sentence? How shall you weather the crisis? Recall to mind that Jesus is described as the skandalon, the stumbling block. Recall the way popular reaction to Jesus breaks: His crucifixion is a stumbling block, a deal breaker to the Jews, and the Gentiles see nothing but foolishness in the idea of considering some victim of crucifixion as being somehow a god (1Co 1:18-19). But to those called by God, whether Jew or Greek, He is found to be the very power and wisdom of God. To encounter Jesus is, then, a crisis. To face that potential stumbling block (and here I am returning, I believe, to thoughts I pursued in that study on the cross,) is assuredly to be at the critical point, the turning point. There is a fork which has arisen in the road of our life, and a choice that must be made. Turning back is not an option. Neither, once the route is selected, can we return to this point and choose again. There may, God being merciful, be other forks ahead, granting us a reprieve of sorts, but there is no guarantee. The moment of crisis must be encountered as final.
Having spent my evenings of late reading through various of those greats of church history, and learning how they adhered to the doctrines of grace as they are called, or the fundamental doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty (particularly in matters salvific), I am more than ever convinced that no man can weather that crisis moment except it be that God’s hand is upon him. No man can lift up that daily cross except it be that God is lifting the cross with him holding on. This, too, is an image from that former study, which I shall not explore further at present. But, the crisis is the point, and the message Jesus appears to be delivering here is that the outcome for these men is already made certain. They will not escape the sentence. The opportunities for repentance have long since come and gone and, in their case, there will be no further forks in the road, no further opportunities given for a change of heart. The die is cast, and they will most certainly do exactly as Jesus has proclaimed here. They will without doubt fill up the measure of the guilt of their forebears. There is no more chance of their redemption than there was of Pharaoh softening his stance toward the Jews in Egypt. Just as salvation is assured for the elect, so condemnation is assured for those whose hearts God sovereignly determines to harden. Let there be no doubt about this. His will is done.
I shall, I suspect, return to these verses further into this study. However, it is time to begin nearer the beginning. I suppose that returns me to the matter of the setting. Here, as I have noted several times of late, we see very different settings in the accounts Matthew and Luke provide. I have thus far accepted that both are correct in the events they recount, and that what we have here are two separate occasions on which Jesus happened to cover the same ground in much the same terms. Admittedly, this becomes more difficult to maintain given the present discourse. It is hard to imagine that even Jesus would be so bold as to make such dire pronouncements as a dinner guest. But, then, this is Jesus we’re discussing, Truth incarnate. Under the circumstances, perhaps we ought not to be so surprised that He would be forthright in His condemnation of even His host at dinner, even His fellow guests at table.
As to whether we can continue to maintain that these are indeed two separate events being covered, I admit it is difficult to see it that way. And yet, I have nothing beyond the apparent congruity of message between the two accounts by which to claim that they are actually one event assigned to two different settings. Such evidence is, I should think, rather circumstantial. I have said before that it is hardly unthinkable that a teacher might recycle certain of his lessons over the course of three years. It’s not impossible that Jesus, having spoken in the Spirit on that earlier occasion, had the message so thoroughly impressed upon His thoughts that here, facing a similar audience and with the finality of events the more certain, saw fit to utilize those words the Spirit had imparted previously. It’s certainly not impossible to imagine that this is how things broke. In short, I should have to conclude that to find conflict or error here, one must rather presuppose the error and then allow the scant evidence to point in that direction. Of course, the opposite can also be said, that to find no error here one must presuppose inerrancy and then seek a means to understand the evidence in that light. For my own part, this latter course is the only one open to me.
As to the groundwork Jesus lays out for the condemnations He is pronouncing, I would have to say that they don’t seem all that convincing to the modern ear. The fact that they seek to honor the dead prophets serves instead to honor the murderous ways of their ancestors? How is it that acknowledging the righteous dead serves to approve the acts of those who killed them? I honestly don’t find a connection there. Now, on the apparently later occasion of Matthew’s recounting, Jesus adds the point that they were inclined to claim that they would not have been party to those acts had they been alive at the time. We would never! And, this, too, Jesus takes as proof to the contrary: You confess by these statements that you are indeed sons of these murderers. Well, one could hardly deny the physical realities, could one?
But, of course, Jesus has not spoken of their being teknon, but rather huios. Under the circumstances, that choice of word is made very consciously, of this you can be certain! It’s not the physical line of descent that leads to guilt. This is where it seems that folks get lost in this sorry concept of generational curses. It’s not because these men happened to sire them that they stand guilty and condemned. It is not because they are teknon of their fathers. It is because they are huios. It is because their own activities, their own character, their own sinfulness confirms them as true sons of these murderous forebears, just as Jesus is demonstrably the true Son of God. It is evident in that thought, moral and action are of a piece with the father’s thought, moral and action. They have a demonstrated affinity for the ways of their ancestors.
Let us be very, very clear on this point: Had these men rejected the murderous ways of their ancestors in reality, and not just in claims that they would certainly not have been party to such things, there would be no guilt accrued to their accounts. The fact of the matter is, though, that Jesus speaks as a Prophet here. As such, His statements are forward-looking as well as backward. He speaks with the certainty of the historical although His woes contemplate actions yet to arise. How the story ends proves His point. They most assuredly would have been party to those acts, and they prove it in short order by perpetrating crimes of the exact same order and worse! They kill not only the messengers, but God Himself! And, as we all know, actions speak far louder than words ever shall.
When Jesus speaks of them as sons of those ancient prophet killers, He is speaking not of lineage but of nature. Here is an occasion where I rather like the way Wuest has translated the verse: “You are by nature sons of those who killed the prophets.” Jesus seems to be making the point that these actions of building tombs and monuments to the deceased prophets is evidence of their nature. Indeed, it’s far more than seeming that way. This is the statement He makes. These are the deeds He says serve as evidence. Once again, I confess I don’t make the connection there. But, when one adds to this the history to come, it is clear that the verdict is accurate. They do indeed demonstrate themselves sons of their forebears by nature, men of like mind and like proclivities. They will indeed demonstrate a close relationship with the ways of their fathers, both in bringing Jesus to the cross and in their subsequent abuse and pursuit of His followers.
[07/29/11] As I reread the verses this morning I find a new realization coming to mind. For this, I thank You, Holy Spirit. This point Jesus makes in Matthew 23:30, how they say that they would not have acted with their fathers had they lived in that time, is the very thing that marks them out as sons of those fathers, men of the same character. Those who killed the prophets, after all, denied that this is what they were doing. Had they held these men to be prophets, truly men in direct contact with God, it is most unlikely that they would have acted to put them to death, for they would also have to recognize that God, with whom these men communed so intimately, would be most immediately aware of their actions, and then what hope? Cain may not fall in this category. He was, perhaps, more honest in his actions if not in the aftermath.
But, there is this about sin: Sin lies. Sin, being the fruit of the father of lies, cannot help but lie. It should be no surprise, then, that when we sin, and when those sins are exposed, our first response is to lie. We fill first strive to explain how it was not our doing. Should that fail, we transfer to explaining how the act was not a sin in this case. We would claim that these were false prophets, and therefore our putting them to death was actually obedience to Scripture. Indeed, that is exactly how those Jesus is confronting would present themselves. It is also the thing Jesus warned His followers about: They will think that they are serving God by putting you to death. Sin, after all, lies not only in those caught in the act, but lies first and foremost to those who so act. What Jesus sets forth as the words of the scribes and Pharisees here is exactly how they think themselves to be. Oh, we would never! But, events will show that they most assuredly do. And, even in the doing, they will continue to think themselves men who would not be complicit in such crimes. Even as they stand by as cheerleaders at the Crucifixion, still in their own minds they will continue to think themselves righteous men, far better than their fathers.
There remains that other aspect of the charge that Luke accentuates. Here, I’ll let the NLT express the sense of the charge: “They killed the prophets, and you join in their crime by building the monuments!” This is admittedly a more difficult connection to follow, how honoring the fallen would serve to give evidence of approval for the slayer. Would we see it thus? Do we look, for example, at the tributes paid to those slain in the 9/11 attacks as somehow stating approval for the attackers? I should think not! Neither would we look upon the Lincoln Memorial as something erected to honor John Wilkes Booth. But, in this case, Jesus says that this is what is happening. I would have to suppose that in making this connection, Jesus is looking well beyond the outward action and into the internal motivation.
Why, we might ask, did these men feel compelled to build such things? They were not, after all, present in the days of those prophets, that they should feel compelled to honor the fallen heroes. The sorts of monuments to which I have been comparing their actions are more current. They were erected primarily by those with a visceral, present tense connection to the events that led to the deaths they mark. They were not participants, but victims after a fashion, much as I hate to allow room for any such victim mentality. They were those immediately affected by the crime, even if not the direct targets of the crime. Likewise, our war memorials are largely established and begun by those who lost loved ones in the war, those who were touched by the human costs of war, and also those who were rescued by the efforts of the fallen.
In the case of these scribes and Pharisees, it could be argued that no such immediacy informs their actions. Instead, it becomes possible to interpret their efforts at publicly honoring these heroes of faith as cover ups. They recognize their complicity, their connection to the perpetrators of these crimes. Perhaps they even recognize the propensity within themselves to do likewise, and it is this very recognition that leads to the claims that they would never, never do such a thing! He who protests the loudest, and all that… It is our nature, after all. We want to think ourselves better than we are. We want to believe that the evils we see are things we would never do. But, the reality, which we well know, is far nearer to the statement, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” In ourselves, left to ourselves, we are very much capable of such crimes, and worse. In moments of honesty, we recognize this in ourselves, and are driven to God for rescue. It is when we fail to recognize that we are most at risk of acting exactly as we are sure we never would. To stand for righteousness requires first the honesty to recognize that righteousness is not in us, and second a constant vigilance against our own self-deceptions. Righteousness can never be passive.
The NET offers up the comment of one T. W. Manson in explaining the charge here. This, apparently, comes from the book, ‘The Sayings of Jesus’, which I may at some point need to hunt down. The sense of the charge, from this author’s perspective is thus: “The only prophet you honor is a dead prophet!” It’s not clear to me that this actually captures the point correctly. There is truth to that, certainly, and other passages would support a similar point. “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household” comes to mind (Mt 13:57, Mk 6:4, Jn 4:44). But, that is not, I think, cause for eternal damnation in itself, is it? If so, I should have to suppose myself at risk as well! For, my clear propensity is to favor theologians who have stood the test of time over those who are present day, let alone my reaction to most who would claim the mantle of the prophet in our age!
There’s room for a bit of self-assessment there, and well do I know it. I must ever be careful that I not allow my preference to blind me from seeing God in action around me. Yet, there is also a certain safety in such propensities, which is the larger part of why I trend that way. One is less prone to being misled by those whose words have long since been tested and found trustworthy, than by listening to those who speak extemporaneously. It is one thing, though, to be cautious as to the Truth, and another entirely to reject the Truth because of the spokesman through whom it is delivered.
All that being said, I still think the charge here is rather different than simply saying that they favor ancient history over modern. Again, that’s an issue, but it’s not a crime to be cautious of the Word. We are taught, after all, to carefully consider the words of those who claim to be prophets. We are told outright, both by history and by warning, that false prophets are, if anything, more numerous than true ones. We must test, and not accept blindly. And we are told that the due penalty for those who speak falsely under claims of godly authority are to be put to death, removed from amongst His people. That’s some pretty stiff justice, and it’s arguably good cause for the skepticism these scribes and Pharisees display.
Yet, the charge Jesus lays against them is something far more serious. They are charged with murder. Rejecting the validity of somebody’s teaching is not yet murder, I should think. Or, does that fall under the umbrella of the commandment as Jesus spreads it, that to call somebody an empty headed fool devoid of all moral sense is already to have committed murder? Yet, if that be so, I should note, Jesus has made Himself criminal, and that cannot be! No, there is clearly a boundary set up somewhere in that expanse, a point where the charge of fool, when leveled accurately, is excluded from guilt. I would not wish to set myself up as the expert in discerning where that bound lies! No, for only God can see the inward estate and thereby establish the veracity of such a charge.
The charge remains a murder charge and it is made the worse by the hypocrisy behind which the actions are hidden. That sense of things fits with the overall arc of the woes Jesus has pronounced, and indeed, with His entire complaint against the system of the Pharisees and their scribes. Hypocrisy has lain at the root of His issue with them from the outset. It is the enormity of the crimes that lie under that cloak that He is revealing now, and in doing so, as I have already noted, He is demonstrating Himself as a prophet.
He is showing Himself a prophet in two senses. First, He satisfies the office in that He speaks forth the true word of God. How could He do otherwise, being God Incarnate? These truths, as seems almost universally the case when a true prophet speaks, are uncomfortably dire. Were it not for the intransigence of those to whom He delivers these woes, they would not be without hope, and indeed for others listening, that hope remains. They stand forewarned by these Pharisees and scribes, forewarned by what shall befall these men, and thus forewarned, they have opportunity to repent and be saved. In a second satisfaction of the office, Jesus is indeed speaking of upcoming events. In saying that they approve their fathers’ deeds, He speaks of deeds they shall themselves be doing. He points to these as He continues His message. In Matthew’s accounting, that comes after the interjection as to the certainty that they shall be sentenced for their crimes, the certainty of those crimes yet to be committed.
The Living Bible accentuates this sense of things in parsing Matthew 23:32. “And you are following in their steps, filling up the full measure of their evil.” There is a point here that needs to be stressed. The condemnations which Jesus pronounces here do not come because of their fathers’ guilt. Condemnation comes in response to personal guilt. It is of utmost importance that we lay hold of this point. I know too many who get caught up in concerns over generational curses. Indeed, one being caught up in this silliness would be too many. I know full well the passage or two that are referred to as a basis for this idea. Yet, God Himself takes the time to refute it. He as much as says, “you missed the point!” After all, the idea of God imposing such a generational curse as is envisioned would be on His part an act of gross injustice. And, God cannot be unjust. He is Justice! Through Ezekiel, He had already made it abundantly clear that the son of a sinner, if he repented of his own sins and walked in righteousness would surely not be condemned, nor would the son of a righteous man, if he should determine to pursue the path of sin, be counted righteous no his parent’s account. Each is responsible for himself, and the Judge, in measuring the man, will look to the deeds of the man, not the historical narrative.
This whole, ridiculous view of things can be seen in the modern habit of demanding reparations from people who never had anything to do with the actions supposedly requiring such reparations, never in any way exhibited a propensity for acting in such fashion. Added to this, the recipients of these reparations were not present to suffer the hurts supposedly requiring this so-called justice. So, we find a rather neurotic populace constantly on the look out for things they can apologize for, even if they had nothing to do with those things, and we have a victim class constantly on the lookout for ways to milk this tendency for all its worth.
As applied to the believer, we see the Old Testament precedence I already mentioned. Here, the tendency was to blame God for injustice, a dangerous tendency, to be sure, and one we are just as prone to pursue, even if we won’t say it outright. I can look upon what my wife goes through on a near daily basis and find it most unreasonable. How could You do this to her, God? You, Who are supposed to love her so! And, yes, I’ll confess my thoughts wander down those avenues at times. Yet, I know that my words are untrue, that these are but the venting of emotional overload. I rather doubt that’s a sufficient excuse, but it’s all I have.
With the modern perspective on generational curses, the problem shifts back to self. That should hardly shock us. Most of life has shifted back to self. We have been through the me decade and we’ve never recovered. Everything is all about me. That attitude, so prevalent in daily life, is bound to influence our approach to faith. Sin is no longer seen so much as being about the offense against God. It’s looked at as being about the trouble caused to me. Sin, half the time, isn’t even about any real offense against God, but rather about something that offended me. It’s all about me, after all. In light of this self-centered view on the universe, it’s no surprise that the concept that all these wrongs I’m suffering are because of something in my parents, or grandparents, or somebody else – anybody else – but me should catch on. It’s nice to think that my suffering isn’t connected to my sin. It allows me to think I’m more righteous than I am. It allows me to be a Pharisee and not even notice!
So, then, look upon what Jesus is saying to these guys. Yes, your parents were sinners. Whose weren’t? Yet, it is not for their sins that you are hearing these woes. It is for your own. You have more than enough guilt in your own right. Now, then, what is the cause for bringing up their parents if it is their own sins being considered? Well, they have (or will, depending on your perspective – maybe both) demonstrated themselves true sons, sons as likeminded students of their fathers’ ways. They are, if you will disciples of their fathers. They have shown themselves happy to do exactly as their forebears did, to repeat the crimes committed. And here’s the kicker: They’ve done so in full view of the disaster such activities have brought upon their forebears. They’ve had the fuller warning, the clearer evidence of how wrong these actions are. And yet, they’ve gone right down the same path.
Here, then, is something to consider. There does seem to be something of a national, communal justice in God’s accounting. We read God’s instruction that the Amorites had not yet filled the account of their sins, for example (Ge 15:16). Or, we could look at the events of the Flood as applying this same principle on a planetary scale. There does, then, appear a sense of the accounts of Justice looking beyond the individual to the collective view of society. In that view, we can be reasonably certain that the societal propensity towards sin was not universal. There may have been and quite probably were those amongst the Amorites who did not concur with the general system of belief prevalent amongst those people. There were those in Israel, prior to the Exile, who had not yet bowed the knee to Baal. There was and always is a remnant. Their status as remnant, however, did not preclude them from experiencing the national punishment, did it? It only allowed them to ride through that punishment with hope intact.
I dare say it can and should be argued that this remnant, even though remnant, was hardly guilt free. If all men are sinners, that necessarily includes these exceptions. It would be perfectly reasonable, for example, to suppose them held accountable for failure to change the prevailing view of the nation, for failing to impact society around them on behalf of God’s kingdom. Think, after all, what eleven men, friends of a convicted felon, a man whose punishment was the most horrible and debasing form known to his punishers, were able to accomplish. These eleven men, from the least respected regions of the least respected region, were yet able to seed such changes as the world has not often seen! These eleven men overthrew the worship of any number of gods, even overthrew the cult of Caesar. It may not have transpired in their lifetimes, but it transpired, and it did so because they did not submit to culture, but rather sought to change culture.
We are in the midst of yet another cultural war. One wonders, really, if there was ever a time when we weren’t. But, it seems to be careening towards some sort of crisis point in our time. I cannot help but wonder if we are not approaching just such a point of national judgment. Certainly, the activities of modern day America are on a par with those nations who have faced such judgments from God in the past. Certainly, we are just as inclined towards a national ego (amongst Christian circles at any rate) as to suppose our nation too important to God for Him to destroy us. That’s such dangerous thinking! That’s the exact delusion of those who were crying, ‘the temple, the temple, the temple!’ as Jeremiah warned them to submit to the hand of God. And, wherever such self-importance has been allowed to take root, God has seen fit to remind His people quite forcibly that there is nothing so necessary to Him as to excuse such a body of sin from its due justice.
Come back to this matter of generational accumulation. It’s connected, I think. It’s just that our measure of the problem is too narcissistic, too me focused. These Pharisees, in their determination to destroy the very Son of God (not that they are consciously thinking that this is what they are doing), are indeed filling up the guilt of their fathers. But, as I have stressed, they do so by adding their own guilt to the pile, not by taking the pile upon themselves. They will find no excuse in saying it’s their fathers’ fault. They will find no amelioration of the sentence because they were victims of society. If anything, the sentence grows sterner because these men, self-proclaimed men of God, did nothing to change society for the better. They did not repent in and of themselves, and insist on pursuing Truth in spite of their training, but rather perpetuated the exact same sinful errors in their own actions.
Their punishment is strictly because of their own actions, yet it also bears the weight of social history. After all, their punishment did not come in a fashion that singled out the Pharisees. Their punishment did not come in a fashion that excused the common folk and only fell upon those at the head. It was as much a national punishment as that which befell the Amorites, as that which was pronounced upon the Canaanites, as had befallen Israel previously. In the same light, we could look at the condition of Britain today versus its heyday. What has happened? How have the mighty fallen so low? What has become of a nation bold to spread the word of God that they now cower and submit before Antichrist? Yes, and we can look at America, who proclaimed herself a city on a hill, a light to the world as she stood for God, and ask the same question. What has happened that the Church cowers before the tide of sin? Can we really suppose we shall escape the fullest measure of our fathers’ guilt, when we willfully ignore its presence all around us?
Allow me, though, to return to the more personal level, for as I have said, condemnation comes in response to personal guilt. There may be national punishments we will be called to endure, but condemnation remains a personal thing. Here, then, is where the generational influence can be seen. I suppose it is something of a universal that we are inevitably found to be more like our parents than we would care to be. It is surely the more common experience that as children we swear we will not be like our mother or father when we grow up. We would surely do things differently. It is equally common that we arrive at a more mature age to discover that we are indeed doing things pretty much the same way after all.
This experience may be found in matters of great importance, such as how we interact with our spouse, how we raise our children, how we comport ourselves in the workplace and in other social settings. Indeed, it could be argued that this is what makes settling into married life so incredibly difficult. Two people from vastly different backgrounds, having inherited very distinct perspectives on adulthood as demonstrated by their respective parents, suddenly find themselves in charge. Yet, they are not in charge dictatorially, but must resolve how they two will take charge together! And, nothing is in common. This one sees all matters of parental discussion as things to be dealt with behind closed doors, that one thinks the kids should know everything. This one thinks that children should be seen and not heard, that one thinks they should be given free rein to explore their childish universe. And, there are a thousand and one items far more trivial to perplex and entrap the unwary, as these two seek to find their way. The differences, as I say, have their seed in the parents they experienced, and those parents likewise had to navigate the differences of their own parental experiences, and so on up through the generations.
I can tell you without doubt that I have many more of my father’s characteristics than I care to admit. Some of them are fine, and merely amuse me to notice; such as a tendency to whistle while working, or a tendency to prefer being the driver rather than the passenger. Certain of my joys I can see either in him or, in some cases, in his father. I think, for instance, of my pleasure at being able to identify certain birds by sight or by sound. I know full well that comes of my grandfather, although I can hardly claim to be on the same level as he was. Or, my occasional forays into woodworking: that’s clearly the seed of my father. These are matters benign and in some ways even beneficial. But, there are other matters of that inheritance that are not so. Shall I blame him for my tendency towards cursing? No. That’s something I established quite well on my own. Yet, I know it is a thing we have in common. Shall I blame him for my addictive personality? For habits of smoking and drinking, (both hopefully settled in the past, but never securely so)? No. Again, I can only blame myself for following suit. Yet, I know these are things we have in common. What of my temper, my general grumpiness? Honestly, much of the time I feel like an old fart before my time. But, again, I can only note the resemblance, not blame the elder for my own habits. Indeed, seeing his example, I have that much greater cause to be avoiding these things. Yet, I find them in me.
This is the deal. This is the point I need to arrive at. We are all of us in this same boat. We have picked up more of our parents than we expected to. We are more like them than we thought we would be, and more like them than we would like to admit, even now. We have taken their habits as our assumptions, and unless we consciously stop and examine those assumptions, we will find ourselves, like these Pharisees, filling up the measure of our fathers by our own sins. If anything, these are the things we must be most on guard against in our own lives, for they are certainly the most likely to arise. We are far more likely to repeat the errors of our ancestors than to come up with new and novel sins of our own. If there is a generational curse to contend with, it is in these propensities. But, honestly, the answer is not going to be found in ritual renouncing of their ways. It’s not going to be found in repenting of their sins. That would seem to me to be of as little value as praying for the deceased or buying indulgences. I cannot be held responsible for these things that preceded me. I can only be accountable for how I choose either to continue those things or to repent of such things in my own life. I can only choose to do the same or to do differently. And frankly, apart from God’s intervention I can’t even manage that choice.
So, yes, let us by all means be aware of those propensities we have inherited. Let us even be aware of inheriting such propensities right on back to Adam, which we surely have. But, let us not think to shift the blame to past generations. Let us not think to suppose our present punishments come of their actions. No! We shall find none but ourselves to blame, and none but ourselves in need of repenting. And, until our repentance is for our own actions, with no attempt to shift the blame elsewhere, I dare say such repentance as we offer will have no value at all in the court of God. Real repentance must accept responsibility, both for what has gone on to date, and for change going forward. It must do so in that Nehemiah sense of doing everything in our power as if God had no hand in the matter, and simultaneously leaning on God for the result as if nothing were in our power.
[07/31/11] As I have been studying these verses, one thing in which my views have shifted repeatedly concerns the apparent quote that Jesus repeats in Luke 11:49. In that verse, it seems pretty clear that He is quoting Scripture and in light of that, His shift to the first person in Matthew’s account seems to contain a greater significance. At the outset of my efforts, this seemed so clear that it caused me to consider the reaction the Pharisees and scribes, those experts in Scripture, would have to His making Himself the one sending the prophets. Would they understand Him as laying claim to being the Wisdom of God? He is, of course. He is the Word, the Logos, the manifest expression of God’s Wisdom. He is arguably to be understood as that one that was written of in Proverbs 8:30: “I was beside Him, a master workman. And I was His daily delight, rejoicing always before Him.” That passage, with its focus on Wisdom personified, could well be heard as describing the eternal Son.
All that being said, it becomes a tad disconcerting that I don’t find a direct point of reference for what Jesus is quoting. Indeed, it leads to one of the question marks that I have set on these verses. What is He quoting? If the Wisdom of God spoke it, where is it written? And, if it is not written, why would Jesus speak it as if it were? That whole line of questioning gives me great pause in terms of what I thought I was hearing in Matthew’s account. What to do? Where is the reference?
The nearest I can come to an answer is to consider this passage from 2 Chronicles. I’ll take it directly from the NASB. “The Lord, the God of their fathers, sent word repeatedly by His messengers, because He had compassion on His people and His dwelling place; but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, until there was no remedy” (2Chr 36:15-16). Now, I have to confess I found this a bit disturbing. Jesus is quoting accurately! But, then, I recall to myself that this is quite often the way of it. Jesus may not quote with accuracy as we would measure it in terms of rote memorization and word for word rendition of the material. But, He is accurate to the sense, to the meaning.
I have commented often enough on the fact that Satan comes out as being far better at accurately reciting the words than either Jesus or His disciples. Yet, we know full well that where he excels in accurate rendition he fails utterly in application. Jesus, on the other hand, is far more concerned with correctly declaring and applying the point and intent of the message. In that light, it should not surprise to find that His selected verses are given in paraphrase, indeed in a different tense, so as to apply them to the situation at hand.
If these are indeed the verses He had in mind, it’s pretty clear that they are written with historical perspective, set in the past tense. God had already done these things, and His people had already had this adverse reaction to His doings. The prophets had already been slain. It was already established fact, unchangeable history. It is already, if you will, the acts of your fathers. But, Jesus, the Prophet, is in office, and looking at the successors to these for whom there was no remedy. And, looking, He finds them little changed from their forebears. Ergo, what was historical fact for them, is, if you please, historical future for these. They may not have yet done the deed, yet the certainty of that deed is already as unchangeably established as are the deeds of their forebears. So, too, is the inevitability of the result. If there was no remedy for those who had gone before, surely there is no remedy for those who, given the record of the case, dash headlong into the same pursuits.
What is less clear to me, though, is whether they would recognize His words, as He speaks in the courts of the temple, as having shifted not only the tense of the passage, but also the voice which speaks it. I return to my original thought: What He had attributed to God’s voice at dinner, He now speaks in His own voice. There, it was essentially, “God said, ‘I will send.’” Here, there is no attribution made. It is the undecorated, “I will send.” If, as I have supposed, there is an inherent claim to the godhead here, did anybody notice? Was the preceding point about those prophets who had been slain enough to bring this particular passage to mind for those listening, that they would be sufficiently attuned to pick up on His wording? I don’t know.
We are dealing with a passage which is certainly outside the Pentateuch. I don’t believe we are outside of Torah, given a point made in regard to Zechariah’s mention here. In fact, I’m pretty certain, given that point (which we will get to), that we are very much inside the material of Torah. I bring this up solely to say that it could be that these verses had been on the schedule for the week’s readings. They might have been quite fresh on the minds of those listening. It’s unclear, and I am not certain I should give the matter sufficient weight as to justify finding out one way or the other. The lack of an immediate move to stone Him for His audacity suggests that they did not catch this implication, if it was there to be caught.
As long as we are on these words, though, there is one other thought I would consider. When Jesus sets Himself as the One sending these messengers, and sets their sending in the future, it is clear that He is no longer pointing backward to those already slain. He is setting forth the conditions by which those listening to Him that day would indeed fill up the measure of their fathers’ guilt by acts of similar, indeed all but identical, criminality. I am sending. They have not yet arrived. They remain future. You will kill and crucify. This has not happened yet, but it is certain. There is no if. There is no unless. There is no opportunity presented for repentance here. This is not a call to repent while yet there is time. This is judgment delivered. There is no more hope for their rescue than there was for Pharaoh.
Well, then, there remains this to consider: Who is He speaking of sending? I mean, we know that there is certainly His own crucifixion on the immediate horizon. Had He left this in the voice of God’s wisdom, we could certainly hear Him as speaking primarily of that event. I would surely view that as the singular deed by which they filled up their own guilt. Yet, the record of the New Testament, particularly that of the historical book of Acts, demonstrates that He was hardly the last to receive such treatment from them. We can look at Stephen. We can look, for all that, to the apostles who, almost to the man, suffered greatly for their faith. We could quite possibly look even further ahead, down through the ages, and find yet others who would be thus killed and persecuted not only in the synagogues, not only by the Jews, but also in the churches, and in the fields, and pretty much everywhere.
That, however, might be looking too far afield. Jesus is not, so far as I can see, speaking to the entire body of the reprobate. He is speaking to a particular set of men, men who in the garb of righteousness perform the most unrighteous of acts, and indeed seek to destroy righteousness from off the earth. In that light, I am inclined to set the Apostles clearly amongst those whom Jesus says He is sending. But, do we count them prophets, wise men, or teachers? More to the point, do we count them in exclusion to all others?
How one resolves this, I suspect, depends more on one’s previously established views than anything else. There are, after all, those who would insist that the prophetic gift, if not the office, continues to function and others who would insist with equal intensity that it does not. There are yet others who would not make any particular distinction between gift and office. Likewise, the role of the apostle is a matter of some contention. We have denominations that fiercely maintain a direct line of descent from the first apostles down through the ages to their present pastorate or priesthood. We have others who seemingly have no interest in such spiritual genealogies. Then, there are those who are certain that God must be inclined to reinstate the office in these end times. On what basis such things are averred, I have no idea. I have not found Scriptural cause for any such belief, but perhaps one could read such things into the passage at hand, if one was so inclined. The question is whether one is reading into the passage, or truly grasping the intent of the passage.
I have to say that this matter of prophets and apostles is a thorny matter for me on a most personal level. For one thing, I have spent most of my formative years in the faith as part of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, where the continuance of prophecy is a given and the continuance of the apostolic office is becoming so. That said, I have spent much of that same period engrossed in doctrines of a more Calvinist or Augustinian outlook, and these, since my time spent studying Romans, have had the ascendancy in my thinking. It is thus that I have in the last year or so removed myself from the Charismatic end of the Christian spectrum and resettled in a far more conservative church family. I have, of course, brought my experience with me. I have also brought my wife. She has soaked in the Charismatic waters for many years longer than I, and is far more enamored of their viewpoints even now, particularly as concerns the prophets.
For my part, I have a fairly negative reaction to those who lay claim to some office or school of prophecy today. Certainly, those I have witnessed coming through our old church did not quite line up with what I see of the prophetic office in Scripture. What I have heard said as regards the teachings promulgated by certain of our modern schools of prophecy is likewise unlike what I see in the Scriptural depiction of the prophetic role.
At the same time, when I encounter those who fiercely reject the prophetic office, and certainly would likewise oppose any attempted claim to the apostolic, the point of contention appears to resolve on one issue: that the canon of Scripture is closed. That’s fine. Yet, now we have to make these distinctions between the office, as if the office universally assigned the right of divine revelation on that level which authored the Scriptures, and the gift which clearly extended beyond the Christ Who fulfilled the office. The gift, then, retains the characteristics of direct communication with God, yet is seen as somehow falling short of direct revelation, instead consisting in illumination of what is already revealed. One could, however, argue that the prophets of old were largely functioning in that same fashion. They did not promulgate new doctrines. They expounded upon and expanded upon what was already established. If there was ever any prophet that set forth doctrine fresh and devoid of any precursor, I suppose one would have to go back to Moses. All others from that point right on through Jesus were but explaining the original, restoring the original, or pointing out the ramifications of the original.
Further, we have record of other prophets, prophets not marked out as false and so presumably true, whose words were not inscripturated. Then, of course, we have reference to those prophets that were in the church during the apostolic period. For all that, we have reference to apostles apart from the Twelve plus one. So, to come out and declare that all this clearly came to an end, one had best have some sound Scriptural backing, yes? Yet, I find no such backing offered. I hear very legitimate concerns raised as to the abuse of the office, a tendency to raise the word of the modern prophet above that of Scripture, the tendency to assume a revelation where there is none, and by so assuming, giving that message a weight equal to Scripture, whether intentionally or not. That is a valid concern. It is not, however, a valid argument against the office. Face it, abuse of the prophetic office is as old, or nearly so, as the office itself. Ask Jeremiah how many prophets were legitimate in his day. Yet, we have no doubt as to his own legitimacy.
I know I have wandered these thought paths before, but I fear I must wander again. If the argument is that these offices were given only until the coming of perfection, and that Perfection has come in the person of the Christ, then the argument fails. The apostles did not even begin their office in earnest until after the Christ had come and returned once more to His heavenly throne. And, again, we have record of both prophets and apostles in the early church, which is certainly post-Ascension. If the argument is from the opening of Hebrews, with reference to how God spoke previously through various means, but in these last days, through His Son, where is there anything in that opening sentence that precludes God ever speaking through other means again? This is not explained, at least not in any place I have observed.
And, we can ask: if the other apostles mentioned in Scripture are not Apostles with a capital A, what is the apostolic role in the lower case? How is it distinguished, and if there is such a distinction, what reason do we have to suppose the position is done away with? We come to Ephesians, and we read that God gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, and that that this was done so as to equip the church (Eph 4:11-12). On what basis do we decide that two of these positions are no longer required, but the others continue to be necessary? If the conditional is to be taken from the subsequent verse, that this continues, ‘until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature that belongs to the fullness of Christ’, I have to ask: are we there yet? If we are, then why do the other three offices persist? If not, why do we suppose we can do without the first two?
Are our eyes so clear that we can see the things that lie ahead now, and no longer need the prophet? Are we so well established that we have no further need for anything in the apostolic order? Do we even know what that would be? I’m not sure I do. And then, to come back to the passage I am currently dissecting here, who was Jesus talking about when He says He will be sending prophets? The apostles, perhaps, we could take as a reference only to those first twelve men, although we again have to come to grips with Acts mentioning others. But, the prophets? If they are already accounted for as apostles, why the double accounting? And, following Matthew’s text, we add to this wise men and scribes. Do we suppose that these, too, have faded from the Christian faith over time? I should hope not! Would we prefer a pastorate unwise and unlettered? Really?
Interestingly, as I have been reading some brief sketches of the pillars of the reformed tradition, I find that Martin Luther, one of the most foundational of these pillars, viewed himself as the fulfillment of a prophecy delivered on the dying lips of John Hus. Now, neither John nor Martin would, I think, have set themselves forth as carrying an equal weight with Scripture. Neither would have suggested themselves as being modern-day apostles. The thoughts would never cross their minds, I’m sure! Yet, Martin, at least, did not seem to find it problematic that there should be a prophetic message at so great a remove from the Apostolic age. Indeed, I should think several of these great men of faith might have found something a bit prophetic in their own conversion experiences, might have had the sense that they were sent to speak God’s message fearlessly to a people in need of hearing. And, in so many of their stories, one can find echoes of Jesus’ word being fulfilled. “You will kill some of them. Others you will whip in your synagogues and persecute from city to city” [God’s Word]. Was this not the story of many of those we look to as heroes of our own tradition?
Behold! I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes, prophets and apostles, sent by the Wisdom of God! It seems to me we would do well to be rather careful to reject out of hand the possibility that such men still arise in our own day. I do not for a moment suggest we accept every claimant to the title on his word. Scripture does not allow of it! But, neither ought we to shut our ears and refuse to hear when God is attempting to speak.
I do not know that I am any nearer a resolution for having once more wandered these trails of thought. I suppose not, really. Yet, I am hearing a certain caution issued to myself, for I have been rather knee-jerk in my reaction to those who claim the title, particularly those who have seemingly made an industry of their supposed office. I must be careful, as I have come into this more conservative setting, that I do not reject what is right and true of these other traditions for the simple reason that they have been subjected to excess. I would not, after all, wish to discover myself counted amongst those persecuting God’s men from city to city.
God, grant me the wisdom, the clarity, to discern what beliefs I ought to hold fast to from the years You had me in these more free-wheeling houses of worship, and what ought to be rejected. Grant me the understanding to see my present family as You see, to bring to them that part of my experience which, though different, may bless, and to draw from theirs that which balances and corrects the mistakes I may have picked up along the way. Grant us all, my Lord, the wisdom to know ourselves yet foolish. Grant us all the understanding to recognize how much we still don’t know of Your ways. Then, please God, open our ears to the teaching of the Holy Spirit whom You have so kindly imparted into our lives to bring us into all knowledge. Let us hear what the Spirit is saying, and accept that we might just be wrong in what we think we know!
[08/02/11] We arrive at the bookends by which Jesus speaks of the blood of the righteous, Abel and Zechariah. But, we are immediately thrown into a quandary. Which Zechariah? The mention of how he died points clearly towards one man, but then, Matthew’s account tosses in his father’s name and thereby points us to another man entirely. What is to be done? Fundamentally, it would be quite simple to just accept that it is the Zechariah of 2Chronicles 24:20-25 to whom Jesus refers, and we would almost certainly be right to do so. Aside from the correlation of accounts of this man’s death with what Jesus describes here, there is another supporting point that the NCV makes note of. In the order of the Hebrew Old Testament, 2Chronicles is the final book. Thus, we have the first and the last such murders in the written order of the book, if not chronologically.
But, there’s that troubling mention of his father being Berechiah, and that seems to be a clear reference to the introduction to the book of Zechariah, which other verses confirm to us as being a different man at a different time. Let me say that this question does not arise out of any difficulty in understanding the point Jesus is making. That is perfectly clear, particularly given the added details of this Zechariah’s death. The problem, if there is one, is that this apparent conflation of two Zechariahs makes for some concern on the inerrancy front. If Scripture is inerrant, and I certainly hold that it is, how is this conflation not an error? Alternately worded, if this is an error, how is Scripture inerrant?
In preparatory work for this study, I have allowed that I would likely just leave this quandary in God’s hands and walk away from it. But, that is not really in me to do, at least not without first attempting to find resolution. It may well be that I shall in the end be left no alternative. But, I do think I should first consult such resources as I may to see if anybody has arrived at an understanding that would make sense of the issue. There was, for instance, the suggestion that maybe there was some theological purpose behind Matthew’s addition of the other Zechariah’s lineage. It does seem, at least amongst the encyclopedic references, there is a general consensus that the error is Matthew’s. Yet, that leaves it an error, doesn’t it? Problem not resolved.
At this point, then, I will turn to some several of the commentaries to see if any resolve can be found therein. Turning first to Barnes, he offers two possible explanations. First, holding with the common view that Zechariah son of Jehoiada is meant, he suggests that perhaps Jehoiada went by multiple names, a not uncommon thing. Matthew himself, he notes, was also known as Levi, and Peter as Cephas. For my part, that is a rather unsatisfactory answer. First, it assigns to a more ancient period something from the then current period. Second, in the two cases noted, there were extenuating circumstances that led to the second name. As for Lebbeus also known as Thaddeus, I cannot say immediately whether such outside forces applied. But, in Peter’s case, the second name was given by Christ Himself. In Matthew’s case, one expects the second name was taken because of his chosen trade, for to be a publican was to bring shame on not only self but also on family. Better for all if he was not so easily connected to his parents.
The alternative theory Barnes offers is that we are indeed to understand this as being the Zechariah of Nehemiah’s time, and that we simply are unaware of the manner of that man’s death. Here, the supposition is that while we are unaware, the tradition would have been sufficiently well known to those listening. This, too, seems an uncharacteristically weak argument from Barnes. It is striking just how much we know of traditional beliefs of this period. The scribes and Pharisees had, after all, written much of their tradition down. One can understand, certainly, why they might expunge this particular incident from their records as they seem to have expunged those who supported Jesus from the record. So, I suppose it’s not out of the question. It just feels unsatisfactory.
The Geneva footnotes come down in support of the first theory, that Jehoiada was also called, as they have it, Barach-jah, “blessed of the Lord”. No basis is given for arriving at this understanding. It’s not a similarity in the meaning of the name, certainly. Jehoiada translates nearer to “God knows”.
OK, here’s something: The IVP Bible Background offers this point: “Matthew uses the Jewish interpretive technique of combining key words to coalesce two Zechariahs, referring to one and alluding to the other.” I’m not sure what that does for the accuracy issue, but it is at least a tolerable explanation. I must be mindful, as well, that the historians of the time were not averse to putting words into the mouths of those whose histories they were recording. On the other hand, this is something more than a mere history I am considering.
The JFB assumes son of Jehoiada is the one meant, particularly given his final words of, “the Lord require it.” The Jewish NT Commentary notes that Josephus also speaks of the later Zechariah as having been killed in the temple, as does the Targum Yonatan. It also offers the possibility that Jehoiada was the Iddo noted as this later Zechariah’s grandfather. It’s not clear to me that the span of years between Josiah and the return from exile allow such a possibility, but they note that Jehoiada lived to be 130, so perhaps it’s not entirely out of the question. Matthew Henry returns to the idea that Berechiah and Jehoiada are names sufficiently similar in meaning as to allow that both refer to the same man, high priest during the reign of Joash. There is another reference here to the account given by Josephus. The Zechariah mentioned therein, though, is one slain just prior to the destruction of the temple by Roman forces, i.e. at a date later than Jesus is speaking, which would seem a trifle problematic. That said, Jesus is clearly in prophetic voice here, so it’s not unthinkable that He includes history future with history past in this. Robertson says that ‘a half-dozen possibilities can be suggested’ as to why Matthew’s record is what it is, but offers none of them for consideration. Calvin, for his part, holds that either Jehoiada had a surname given, the which he certainly deserved considering the record of his life, or that Matthew was indeed mistaken. I would have to suppose that of these two possibilities, he would lean toward the former. As to the intended Zechariah being the later one from Nehemiah’s time, he rejects the thought outright.
None too surprisingly, we arrive at no clear answer. I will say, however, that we have at least arrived at a potential satisfaction in the idea of Jehoiada having a secondary name. I was apparently incorrect in thinking this read a Roman-period practice back onto earlier generations. At the very least, men of sufficient reputation as to have my trust in the matter accept that this was as much in practice in earlier times as current. The only issue I find with this explanation is that we find no other mention of Jehoiada under this name. Well, then, Scripture is not intended to be a complete and unabridged history of the nation of Israel given in excruciating detail. So, it need not be thought a theory killer that we have no such record. Apart from that niggling issue, the theory seems not unreasonable, and at least satisfies the needs of inerrancy. It certainly does so far better than to simply say Matthew got the attribution wrong. That, I should think, would be a far more troubling conclusion to arrive at, and I’m frankly a bit surprised to see Calvin even allow of such an idea.
Let me, then, settle on the fact that this is as near a resolution as I’m likely to come upon. That being the case, I shall hold with the idea that this is Zechariah son of Jehoiada that Jesus is referring to, and base further discussion on that viewpoint. There is, after all, much to recommend it, and very little to recommend against it.
It is interesting, in aside, that Calvin chooses to minimize the bookend idea behind Jesus mentioning Abel and Zechariah. (Hmm. A-Z.) From his perspective, it is more to the point that the murder of Zechariah, who was himself a priest, and whose murder was perpetrated on the very grounds of the temple, even in the holy place, marked the point at which Israel’s depravity really went into high gear. Idolatries had certainly preceded this event, but now all restraint was gone. Now, all regard for God’s holiness was at an end, and thus their crimes increased. From Calvin’s perspective, this is the point Jesus is making, rather than trying to suggest some all-inclusive range. Whether or not he is correct in this, it is an interesting perspective.
There are several other items I had thought to comment on in regard to the particulars of Abel and Zechariah. However, I think I shall settle on considering only a very few of these. One in particular serves to provide yet another connection between the two. When God confronted Cain over his brother’s murder, He says, “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground” (Ge 4:10). When Zechariah breathed his last, it is recorded that he said, “May the Lord see and avenge!” (2Chr 24:22). Indeed, the Lord has heard, and He has seen, and He will assuredly avenge the deaths of His righteous ones, His children. As much as Jesus pronounces a fulfillment of this upon the heads of the scribes and Pharisees as He foresees them adding His own blood to their crimes, it is clear that this evil treatment of those who stood for righteousness has not ceased.
I could wonder, as I’ve been reading of those men who stood for reform, what will be the cost for their destruction? So many of these men, godly men and determined to uphold the ways of righteousness, were either put to death outright or so mistreated by the religious authorities of the age as to be put to death as it were by stealth. Can it be supposed that the church that orchestrated and authorized such violence against the image of God will escape unpunished? Is there any reason to suppose that this punishment has already been delivered? Should we, perhaps, see the scandals of the last several years as justice delivered on their heads, or as a down payment on such justice? But, I find it difficult to accept that God would promote such evils as punishment for evil. No, I think the arrival of justice in this case is yet to come.
We daren’t suppose that the list has stopped there, though. We know full well that the church continues to suffer its martyrs at the hands of man. It may not be the case that these men are put to death by those claiming to be God’s own authorities any longer, at least not those claiming to be serving the God of Scripture, yet surely many of the modern day martyrs are being put to death by those who think they are doing a holy work. Surely, the end result is much the same, and just as surely, the final judgment will be just as severe. I need but turn to the book of the Revelation to confirm that the blood of the martyrs continues to flow unabated, and continues to be both seen and heard in heaven, where Righteous and True awaits but the filling up to the full of the measure of their guilt before He shall visit Justice upon them to the uttermost.
Here, I would just note the meaning of Zechariah’s name: “Jehovah remembers”. He who cried out for the Lord to see and avenge could be assured by his own name that the Lord would surely remember and see it put to rights. This has never changed. God sees and God remembers. I say this to our comfort, who seem to suffer so many injustices in this life. I say this also to our discomfort, for we have yet to walk in true righteousness. We remain prone to our sins, prone to abusing the liberty into which Jesus has bought us. We remain terrifyingly capable of committing sins every bit as heinous as those committed by Cain and by Joash.
Here, I would note another bit of correlation between the two events. Cain and Abel were, of course, brothers. The murder was made just a little bit worse, at least in our eyes, in that it was brother killing brother. Joash, it is noted, was Zechariah’s cousin. Indeed, if we consider his story, how Jehoiada, Zechariah’s father, took him in and hid him when his life was threatened by the latest usurper on the throne, we could suppose that these two also grew up with a bond akin to brotherhood. And yet, when righteousness confronted wanton sin, the reaction of sin was violent to the extreme.
While these two examples demonstrate the worst-case reaction to godly rebuke, they are not that unlike our own reactions, or at least mine. There is something that just rises up against rebuke. We do not like being told we are wrong, particularly when it is a moral wrong. It really doesn’t matter, in that moment, whether we know ourselves to be wrong or not. Standing accused, we will almost invariably begin expressing things we think to offer as excuses or justifications. They’re all nonsense, but we must defend ourselves, defend our honor. As if we had any honor!
This last week, we considered the sixth commandment in the Sunday sermon: Thou shalt not murder. One cannot contemplate that command without hearing what Jesus had to say on the topic. One cannot think upon His teaching without recognizing that the physical act is but the worst-case form of the sin in question. If you even call your brother a fool: guilty! It makes me wonder how our reaction to godly rebuke measures against that same commandment. If Cain and Joash are but the extremes, the ‘thou shalt not murder’ examples of response to rebuke, is my own tendency towards angry denial and countercharge any less guilty of breaking that same commandment? I think not.
One final point I would make on these two examples, and for this I will lean more on the story of Zechariah. We are told that he was murdered between temple and altar. He was not quite in the Holy of holies, but I do believe this puts him squarely in the Holy Place. That is to say that he was in the one place where a man ought not have to be concerned with murder, certainly not at the hands of a purported fellow citizen of God’s kingdom.
I have to put that qualification on there because of the age in which we live. But, take it back to the period of Zechariah and Joash. They were in the midst of Judea, in Jerusalem. The temple had been long established, and the particular sanctity of the Holy Place, the sanctuary was still something of a given in society. Think, after all, what the whole concept of sanctuary means, or meant. This was the place, along with the sanctuary cities, where one facing vengeance from a fellow citizen could flee, and could know that vengeance would at least have to wait until he had left this place. It was something of a court of last appeal. Surely, if there was anyplace on the face of the whole earth that the blood of one’s fellow man ought not to be shed it was here!
If, in our eyes, the violence of brother on brother looks to be a greater evil than the more general violence of man against stranger, just imagine how the defiling of His own house must have increased the criminality of the act in God’s eyes! For that, think how we respond to news of somebody suffering violence in their own home, even the lesser violence of robbery leaves one feeling particularly violated. The security of the home, or the illusion thereof, is shattered and nothing, it seems, can reestablish it. Indeed, the victim of such a crime may feel it necessary to relocate in order to fully put behind them the effects of the crime. And here, God’s people had done violence in His own home. It wasn’t bad enough that they had caused His house to be shared with idols to His enemies. It wasn’t enough that they had let the place out to strangers, and not just strangers, but those who utterly loathed the Owner of the house. Now, they had so desecrated His house, so polluted it with their sins as to make it utterly uninhabitable. And yet, it would still take until later before He would completely abandon the place. Behold the patience of God!
Why do I bring this up? Well, again, I am reminded that this is but the worst-case playing out of a larger body of crime. The physical act of murderous bloodshed is the most clearly reprehensible, but the thousand little murders we may commit against our brother; the innuendos spread around, the unwillingness to forgive a perceived slight, the unwillingness to seek forgiveness when we have given cause, the lies: In all of these things we are in the same general neighborhood as murder. God help us if we are so hardened to our own sins as to allow these things to enter into His house with us, to be our practice even as we stand before Him.
I note that this coming Sunday we shall be sharing in the rite of Communion. I think upon the instructions and warnings that Scripture imparts to us in regard to our observance of this event: If you have anything against a brother, go and be reconciled first. I think also of Paul’s comment regarding those who had, in taking Communion without due consideration and preparation, taken it to their own demise. Sounds harsh, doesn’t it? But, if we are walking around before the throne of God with a core of unforgiveness, of sins allowed to fester and ferment, why should we expect anything different? We in essence stand before the Judge and thumb our noses at Him, dare Him to do anything about it. There we stand, between temple and altar, and in our hearts, we are happily destroying our brother in Christ. And we think God will wink at it, that we can expect to walk out as free men.
To the degree that this is our story, I dare say we’d best hear the close of this passage as directed at ourselves. “All these things shall come upon this generation. Truly, it shall be charged against you.” It’s all well and good that we know ourselves to be in the age of grace, to be the blessed recipients of God’s great mercy. But, it cannot be that we are truly wrapped about in His grace and mercy and yet remain so stubbornly opposed to His ways as to defile His house by our every thought and act. It is one thing to claim to be in His grace. It is another to actually be so. Salvation must demonstrate its reality in fruits befitting salvation. A good tree cannot bear evil fruits.
God, there’s a clear call for repentance in what I have been thinking about here, for I know I am guilty of pretty much the whole deal. I have yet to be a willing listener to godly rebuke. I have yet to seek to be at peace with all men as I ought. I have been willing to judge my brother as lacking, and to carry that sentiment with me before Your altar. And, who am I to judge? Who am I to make myself the measure? Holy Spirit, come! Come and renew this mind, this man! Come and establish a new mindset even today, that I may come into Your house without causing You such offense as demands response. Let this day be the day that marks a new start in me. God, I would ask for perfection in my walk, but I know that will not come until this vale of tears is passed. But, I would ask for such as You are willing to give. I would ask that I might find, in coming days and weeks, a new growth, a new attitude, a lessening of the angry, frustrated old man and an increasing of the godly man of peace. Let the fruit of my life accord with Your work in me, and redound to Your glory. That is enough. Amen.
