Matthew 23:35 - Which Zacharias?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

It seems to be a merism,
with "Abel to Zechariah" meaning "A to Z"
or "the whole group."

It would seem to be exactly that, and especially when Christ says, in vs 35:

"That upon you may come ALL the righteous blood shed upon the earth..."

So that this would mean, as you say, from the first to the very last... That is the only possible meaning of ALL, yes? ALL can only mean the first, the last, and every one in between these two...

And this rules out Zacharias being one of the old Prophets and righteous ones, unless you are going to argue that the Jews spilled NO righteous blood after that of Zechariah son of Jehoiada - So that now we have two reasons to reject this explanation...

And indeed, if we are to believe Christ, that ALL means ALL, then this Zacharias can be none other than the very last Righteous one that was killed by the Jews... And Christ tells us who this one is, and where they killed him, and who his father is... He does not tell us when or why or how...

It is a pretty good who-done-it-to-whom-when-and-where-and-how so far, yes?

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

On this day, June 24th, in the Holy Orthodox Church we celebrate the nativity of the holy Prophet and Fore-Runner and Baptist John...

The following is the text that is read in all the Orthodox Church services today concerning this man who was, in Christ's words, the greatest of all those born of woman...

Six months before his appearance in Nazareth to the All-holy Virgin Mary, the great archangel of God, Gabriel, appeared to Zacharias the high priest in the Temple at Jerusalem. Before he announced the miraculous conception to the unwed Virgin Mary, the archangel announced the miraculous conception to the childless old woman Elizabeth. Zacharias did not immediately believe the words of the herald of God and this is why his tongue was tied with dumbness and remained as such until eight days after the birth of John. On that day, the relatives of Zacharias and Elizabeth gathered for the young child’s circumcision and for the sake of giving him a name. When they asked the father what name he wishes to give to his son and being dumb, he wrote on a tablet: “John.” At that moment he could speak again. Herod heard of this news and sent soldiers to slay the children throughout Bethlehem, including the Forerunner. Herod’s executioners killed Zacharias between the court and the temple; his blood coagulated and petrified on the stone pavers and remained a perpetual witness against Herod. Elizabeth hid with the child in a cave where she died soon after. The young child John remained in the wilderness alone under the care of God and God’s angels.

And so it is that whereas all other possible Zacharias are ruled out one way or another, this one is not ruled out at all, and his story comes through in the service texts of the Church...

Of particular note is the petrification of his blood on the stone pavers - It could not be washed away - And this blood is on Herod's hands, and will be placed on the hands of the (unrepentant) Jews because they have incriminated themselves and will themselves be killing those God sends to them... As indeed Paul/Saul was doing...

Arsenios

[RBerman]

Sounds fabricated.

[BookerG]

Problem: Supposedly Zechariah was killed by Herod when he was trying to kill the baby Jesus. So how could Jesus say, “You killed him,” if you insist they had to be personally guilty and responsible for his death?

Problem: The story of John’s father being killed comes from the Infancy Gospel of James, which the Orthodox Church admits was not written by James, and it contains much falsehood.

"Among the apocrypha is the protoevangelion of James, which contains some details about the life of the Theotokos that the Church has acknowledged are true. Nonetheless, the book itself is apocryphal. It was not written by James, it is not genuine, authoritative or inspired and much of it, if not most of it, is false. It never appeared on any canonical list as a genuine apostolic book and was never accepted by any Father of the Church as genuine. Whatever true information it contained has already been incorporated by the Church into its liturgical life and there is no need to read it." ('Canon of Scripture: Introduction', by Eugenia Constantinou).”

Go ahead and read it. It’s the source of your theory.

I don’t claim to know for sure which Zechariah Jesus was speaking about. I wouldn’t absolutely reject John’s father as a candidate. But I still put him at the very bottom of the list of candidates. It seems odd that the Jews would have known exactly who Jesus was talking about, although Zechariah had died almost 30 years earlier, and they would personally feel guilty about his death, but they wouldn’t know why he died, protecting John the Baptist when Herod was actually trying to kill Jesus, the newborn King of the Jews, whose birth was announced by the star.

You also claim it had to be the absolutely last prophet who was killed. But that wouldn't be Zechariah. That would be John the Baptist. He was dead by this time. Unless you don't think he was a prophet.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Problem: Supposedly Zechariah was killed by Herod when he was trying to kill the baby Jesus. So how could Jesus say, “You killed him,” if you insist they had to be personally guilty and responsible for his death?

First, thank you for a great post... This first problem comes from my personal surmise that they had to have killed him in order to be guilty of all the blood... I could easily be wrong in that assessment... It seemed reasonable at the time... And from this text it certainly would be wrong...

Problem: The story of John’s father being killed comes from the Infancy Gospel of James, which the Orthodox Church admits was not written by James, and it contains much falsehood.

I won't argue against that...

[quote]"Among the apocrypha is the protoevangelion of James, which contains some details about the life of the Theotokos that the Church has acknowledged are true. Nonetheless, the book itself is apocryphal. It was not written by James, it is not genuine, authoritative or inspired and much of it, if not most of it, is false. It never appeared on any canonical list as a genuine apostolic book and was never accepted by any Father of the Church as genuine. Whatever true information it contained has already been incorporated by the Church into its liturgical life and there is no need to read it." ('Canon of Scripture: Introduction', by Eugenia Constantinou).

Well, this validates Zacharias as the father of John the Baptist, because I took it from the liturgical life of the Church...

Go ahead and read it. It’s the source of your theory.

It isn't MY theory - I took it from the "Liturgical life of the Church"... And from the homilies of Gregory Palamas - Especially Homily 53... I must say that I had not given it much thought until I read Palamas #53, and then we read it yesterday for the Liturgy of the Nativity of John the Baptist...

I don’t claim to know for sure which Zechariah Jesus was speaking about. I wouldn’t absolutely reject John’s father as a candidate.

That was my understnding as well - yet the others are all ruled out one way or another...

But I still put him at the very bottom of the list of candidates. It seems odd that the Jews would have known exactly who Jesus was talking about, although Zechariah had died almost 30 years earlier, and they would personally feel guilty about his death, but they wouldn’t know why he died, protecting John the Baptist when Herod was actually trying to kill Jesus, the newborn King of the Jews, whose birth was announced by the star.

This objection is easily accounted by the miraculous petrification of his blood on the stones, which would not wash away, and there is as well the question of Jewish complicity in Herod's killing of Zacharias - He WAS righteous, he WAS the chief Priest, and they were not, and needed one of their guys in that position, if I have it right...

You also claim it had to be the absolutely last prophet who was killed. But that wouldn't be Zechariah. That would be John the Baptist. He was dead by this time. Unless you don't think he was a prophet.

Another of MY claims that can be easily set aside... John was the greatest of all the prophets... I was unaware that this talk by Jesus is being given AFTER John's beheading... I would want to see the demonstration of that from Scripture...

Thanks again for a well thought out post!

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Sounds fabricated.

Shallow response...

Arsenios

[Rushing Jaws]

Pop-Quiz time!

Which of the Righteous Prophets IS this Zacharias, son of Barachias?

And why do you think so?

Is this a reference to the first and the last of the righteous slain for righteousness?

And if so, which Zacharias is the last righteous Prophet so slain?

Mat_23:35
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,
from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias,
whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.


And -

Luk_11:51
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias,
which perished between the altar and the temple:
verily I say unto you,
It shall be required of this generation.


Arsenios

## IMO, Zechariah the Prophet, son of Jehoiada, in 2 Chronicles, who rebuked King Joash of Judah.

A confusion between that Zechariah, & Zechariah the writing Prophet whose book is in the canon of the OT, seems so natural as to be entirely possible. If 2 Chronicles was the last book of the Jewish canon by the time of Jesus or of the Evangelist, to end salvation history, which begins in Genesis, with a reference to an incident near the end of 2 Chronicles, would make sense.

As to the objection that this implies a lapse of memory on the part of the Incarnate Word - if it does, I don't see that as a problem; I don't expect Him to be error-free in every last detail; the notion of a fallible Saviour doesn't bother me at all. He is important because in Him God is decisively & canonically & for all time made known & revealed - not because He is (as it were) quiz champion of the universe. It is possible that the confusion is not Jesus', but the Evangelist's. The words of Jesus - if they are his own - may be, not an imparting of eternally valid & timeless information, but personal address spoken to apply to a particular situation. Even if Jesus is mistaken here, it is the Father, not the Son, Whose knowledge is emphasised; there is no suggestion in the gospels that the Son is all-knowing. My belief is that He was not, but that He was as wise & as knowing during His ministry on earth as He needed to be for His Mission: IOW, that His knowledge before His Ascension (?) was "economic". Hebrews 4 stresses that He was fully human, though without sin - not that He was perfect in knowledge. He asks questions, & to interpret these questions as pious feints, for the sake of instructing others, perhaps, STM to devalue the genuineness of the Incarnation. If He really "grew, and waxed strong, filled with wisdom" (Luke 2), then he must have had a genuine human development, in knowledge as in all else.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

## IMO, Zechariah the Prophet, son of Jehoiada, in 2 Chronicles, who rebuked King Joash of Judah.

So Jesus, in His error prone humanity, simply got his father's name wrong?
eg: Zacharias son of Barachias, vs son of Jehoiada
The discrepancy seems kinda fatal...

Got anything against Zachariah father of John the Baptist? This would be the only place in the Bible where we get his father's name...

Arsenios