Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 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 Zechariah son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
35. from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias ] If the reading “son of Barachias” be retained (it is omitted in the Sinaitic MS.) a difficulty arises; for the Zacharias, whose death “in the court of the house of the Lord” is recorded 2Ch 24:20-22, was the son of Jehoiada. The words, however, do not occur in Luk 11:51, and are possibly interpolated. Zechariah the prophet was a son of Barachias: but of his death no record is preserved. Another explanation has been offered. At the commencement of the Jewish War with Vespasian a Zacharias, son of Baruch, was slain in the Temple by two zealots (Jos. B. J. iv. 5. 4). Accordingly many commentators have thought that Jesus spoke prophetically of that event. The coincidence is remarkable, but the explanation is hardly probable.
The space from Abel to Zacharias, son of Jehoiada, covers the whole history of the Jews; for the Jewish Canon, not being arranged in order of time, closed with the second book of Chronicles.
ye slew ] The present generation shares in the guilt of that murder.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
That upon you may come … – That is, the nation is guilty. Your fathers were guilty. You have shown yourselves to be like them. You are about, by killing the Messiah and his messengers, to fill up the iniquity of the land. The patience of God is nearly exhausted, and the nation is about to be visited with signal vengeance. These national crimes deserve national judgments; and the proper judgment for all these crimes are about to come upon you in the destruction of your temple and city.
All the righteous blood – That is, all the judgments due for shedding that blood. God did not hold them guilty for what their fathers had done; but temporal judgments descend on children in consequence of the wickedness of parents, as in the case of drunken and profligate parents. A drunken father wastes the property that his children might have possessed. A gambler reduces his children to poverty and want. An imprudent and foolish parent is the occasion of leading his sons into places of poverty, ignorance, and crime, materially affecting their character and destiny. See the notes at Rom 5:12-19. So of the Jews. The appropriate effects of their fathers crimes were coming on the nation, and they would suffer.
Upon the earth – Upon the land of Judea. The word is often used with this limitation. See Mat 4:8.
Righteous Abel – Slain by Cain, his brother, Gen 4:8.
Zacharias, son of Barachias – It is not certainly known who this was. Some have thought that it was the Zecharias whose death is recorded in 2Ch 24:20-21. He is there called the son of Jehoiada; but it is known that it was common among the Jews to have two names, as Matthew is called Levi; Lebbeus, Thaddeus; and Simon, Cephas. Others have thought that Jesus referred to Zecharias the prophet, who might have been massacred by the Jews, though no account of his death is recorded. It might have been known by tradition.
Whom ye slew – Whom you, Jews, slew. Whom your nation killed.
Between the temple and the altar – Between the temple, properly so called, and the altar of burnt-offering in the court of the priests. See the plan of the temple. Mat 21:12.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 35. Upon the earth] , upon this land, meaning probably the land of Judea; for thus the word is often to be understood. The national punishment of all the innocent blood which had been shed in the land, shall speedily come upon you, from the blood of Abel the just, the first prophet and preacher of righteousness, Heb 11:4; 2Pe 2:5, to the blood of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah. It is likely that our Lord refers to the murder of Zachariah, mentioned 2Ch 24:20, who said to the people, Why transgress ye the commandments of God, so that ye cannot prosper? Because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath forsaken you. And they conspired against him and stoned him – at the commandment of the king, in the court of the house of the Lord. And when he died, he said, The Lord look upon and require it: 2Ch 24:21-22.
But it is objected, that this Zachariah was called the son of Jehoiada, and our Lord calls this one the son of Barachiah. Let it be observed,
1. That double names were frequent among the Jews; and sometimes the person was called by one, sometimes by the other. Compare 1Sa 9:1, with 1Ch 8:33, where it appears that the father of Kish had two names, Abiel and Ner. So Matthew is called Levi; compare Mt 9:9, with Mr 2:14. So Peter was also called Simon, and Lebbeus was called Thaddeus. Mt 10:2-3.
2. That Jerome says that, in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, it was Jehoiada, instead of Barachiah.
3. That Jehoiada and Barachiah have the very same meaning, the praise or blessing of Jehovah.
4. That as the Lord required the blood of Zachariah so fully that in a year all the princes of Judah and Jerusalem were destroyed by the Syrians, and Joash, who commanded the murder, slain by his own servants, 2Ch 24:23-25, and their state grew worse and worse, till at last the temple was burned, and the people carried into captivity by Nebuzaradan: – so it should also be with the present race. The Lord would, after the crucifixion of Christ, visit upon them the murder of all those righteous men, that their state should grow worse and worse, till at last the temple should be destroyed, and they finally ruined by the Romans. See this prediction in the next chapter: and see Dr. Whitby concerning Zachariah, the son of Barachiah.
Some think that our Lord refers, in the spirit of prophecy, to the murder of Zacharias, son of Baruch, a rich Jew, who was judged, condemned, and massacred in the temple by Idumean zealots, because he was rich, a lover of liberty, and a hater of wickedness. They gave him a mock trial; and, when no evidence could be brought against him of his being guilty of the crime they laid to his charge, viz. a design to betray the city to the Romans, and his judges had pronounced him innocent, two of the stoutest of the zealots fell upon him and slew him in the middle of the temple. See Josephus, WAR, b. iv. chap. 5. s. 5. See Crevier, vol. vi. p. 172, History of the Roman Emperors. Others imagine that Zachariah, one of the minor prophets, is meant, who might have been massacred by the Jews; for, though the account is not come down to us, our Lord might have it from a well known tradition in those times. But the former opinion is every way the most probable.
Between the temple and the altar.] That is, between the sanctuary and the altar of burnt-offerings.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
That upon you may come all the righteous blood,…. Or “the blood of all the righteous men”, as the Syriac: Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions read; for there is no righteousness in blood, nor any conveyed by it: all men are of one blood, and that is tainted, they that are righteous, are not so naturally, nor by any righteousness of their own, but by the righteousness of Christ: and such were the persons here meant, whose blood being shed in the cause of righteousness, God would revenge; and the punishment for such a crime, and the vengeance of God for it, were to come upon the nation of the Jews by this means, through their crucifying of Christ, and killing, and persecuting his apostles; whereby they would make it manifest, that they approved of, and consented to, what others had done to all the righteous men, whose blood had been
shed upon the earth; whether in Judea, or elsewhere; and continued in the same wicked practices, or committed worse, and so justly incurred the wrath of God to the uttermost; which would quickly come upon them, when the measure of their fathers’ sin were filled up by them, from the beginning of time, to the present age: even
from the blood of righteous Abel: who was the first person in the world that was killed, and that for righteousness sake too, because his works were righteous, his person being so; not by his works, but through the righteousness and sacrifice of the Messiah, which were to be brought in; in the faith of which he offered up his sacrifice, whereby he obtained a testimony from God, that he was righteous, having respect to his person in Christ, and so to his offering. This epithet of “righteous” seems to be what was commonly given him by the Jews: hence, with a peculiar emphasis, he is called, , “Abel the righteous” t; as he is also said to be , “the head of them that killed” u; he being the first man that was slain; for which reason he is mentioned here by Christ; and also, because his blood cried for vengeance, and still continued to do, upon all such persons that should commit the like crime. It is an observation frequently made by the Jews, on those words in Ge 4:10 “the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me”, that
“it is not said in the Hebrew text, the blood of thy brother, but the bloods of thy brother; his blood, and the blood of his seed w; and that from hence may be learned, that the blood of his children, and of his children’s children, and of all his offspring, to the end of all generations, that should proceed from him, all stood and cried before the Lord x.”
The Jerusalem Targum paraphrases the words in this remarkable manner;
“the price of the bloods of “the multitude of the righteous”, that shall spring from Abel thy brother.”
And Onkelos thus,
“the voice of the blood of the seed that shall rise from thy brother, c.”
unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Learned men are very much divided about this person, who he was. Some think our Lord speaks prophetically of Zechariah, the son of Baruch who, as Josephus says y, was slain in the middle of the temple, just before the siege of Jerusalem; and who was, as he also relates, a rich man, of an illustrious family, a hater of wickedness, and a friend to liberty: and because, as Abel was the first man that was slain, and this man being killed in the temple, at the close of the Jewish state; and because the words may be rendered, “whom ye shall have slain”, therefore he is thought to be intended: but there are several things that do not agree with him, besides its being a narration of a fact, as past, according to the usual rendering of the word: for this Zacharias was the son of Baruch, and not Barachias, which are two different names; he was killed in the middle of the temple, not between the temple and the altar; nor does he appear to be a man of such great character, as to be distinguished in this manner; and besides, his death was what the Jews did not consent to in general, and therefore could not be charged with it; he was acquitted by the sanhedrim of the charge of treachery laid against him, and was assassinated by two zealots. Others have thought that Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, is meant, who is supposed to be murdered by the Jews very lately; and it being a recent action, is mentioned by our Lord: the reason of it is a tradition, which several ancient writers z speak of, and is pretended to be this; that there was a place, in the temple appropriated to virgins, and that Mary, the mother of our Lord, after his birth, came and took her place here, as a virgin, when the Jews, knowing her to have a child, objected to it; but Zechariah, who was acquainted with the mystery of the incarnation, ordered her to keep her place, upon which the Jews slew him upon the spot: but this tradition is not to be depended on; nor does it appear that there ever was any such particular place in the temple assigned to virgins; nor that the father of this Zacharias was Barachias; or that the son was slain by the Jews, and in this place. Others have been of opinion, that Zechariah the prophet is designed; and indeed, he is said to be the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo, Zec 1:1 and the Jewish Targumist speaks of a Zechariah, the son of Iddo, as slain by the Jews in the temple. His words are these a;
“as ye slew Zechariah, the son of Iddo, the high priest, and faithful prophet, in the house of the sanctuary of the Lord, on the day of atonement; because he reproved you, that ye might not do that evil which is before the Lord.”
And him the Jews make to be the same with Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, in Isa 8:2 and read Berechiah b: but the Targumist seems to confound Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, with him; for the prophet Zechariah was not an high priest, Joshua was high priest in his time; nor does it appear from any writings, that he was killed by the Jews; nor is it probable that they would be guilty of such a crime, just upon their return from captivity; and besides, he could not be slain in such a place, because the temple, and altar, were not yet built: it remains, that it must be Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, who was slain in the court of the house of the Lord, 2Ch 24:20 who, as Abel was the first, he is the last of the righteous men whose death is related in the Scriptures, and for whose blood vengeance was required, as for Abel’s. He was slain in the court of the house of the Lord; and so the Ethiopic version here renders it, in the midst of the holy house. It is often said by the Jewish writer c, that
“R. Joden (sometimes it is R. Jonathan) asked R. Acha, whether they slew Zechariah, in the court of the Israelites, or in the court of the women? he answered him, neither in the court of the Israelites, nor in the court of the women, but in the court of the priests.”
And elsewhere they say d, that they
“slew a priest and a prophet in the sanctuary; this is Zechariah the son of Jehoiada.”
Now it should be observed, that the temple, or sanctuary, is sometimes put for the whole sacred building, with all its courts and appurtenances; and sometimes, as in this text, for that part of it that was covered, between which, and the altar of burnt offerings, in the court of the priests, which must he here meant, and not the altar of incense, in the most holy place, was a space of twenty two cubits e, frequently called, in Jewish writings, the space between the porch and the altar; that is, the porch which led into the temple, and the brazen altar in the court of the priests, which was open to the air, and is the very spot here intended. Now this was a very sacred place, and is mentioned as an aggravation of the sin of the Jews, that they should enter where none but priests might; nor these neither that had any defect in them; and defile it also by shedding innocent blood.
“The court of the Israelites is holier than the court of the women; because those that wanted atonement might not enter there; and a defiled person that entered there, was obliged to be cut off: the court of the priests was holier than that, because the Israelites might not enter there, but in the time of their necessities, for laying on of hands for atonement, for killing and waving: the place between the porch and the altar was holier than that; for such that had any blemishes, or were bareheaded, or had their garments rent, might not enter f.”
Hence they say g, that
“the Israelites committed seven transgressions on that day: they slew a priest, and a prophet, and a judge; and they shed innocent blood, and they blasphemed God, and defiled the court, and it was a sabbath day, and the day of atonement.”
The chief objections to its being this Zechariah are, that the names do agree; the one being the son of Jehoiada, the other the son of Barachias; and the killing of him was eight hundred years before this time; when it might have been thought our Lord would have instanced in a later action: and this he speaks of, he ascribes to the men of that generation: to which may be replied, that as to the difference of names, the father of this Zechariah might have two names, which is no unusual thing; besides, these two names signify much the same thing; Jehoiada signifies praise the Lord, and Barachias bless the Lord; just as Eliakim and Jehoiakim, are names of the same person, and signify the same thing, 2Ch 36:4. Moreover, Jerom tells us, that in the Hebrew copy of this Gospel used by the Nazarenes, he found the name Jehoiada instead of Barachias: and as to the action being done so long ago, what has been suggested already may be an answer to it, that it was the last on record in the writings of the Old Testament; and that his blood, as Abel’s, is said to require vengeance: and Christ might the rather pitch upon this action, because it was committed on a very great and worthy man, and in the holy place, and by the body of the people, at the command of their king, and with their full approbation, and consent: and therefore, though this was not done by the individual persons in being in Christ’s time, yet by the same people; and so they are said to slay him, and his blood is required of them: and their horrible destruction was a punishment for that load of national guilt, which had been for many hundreds of years contracting, and heaping upon them.
t Tzeror Hammor, fol. 8. 2. u Juchasin, fol. 5. 2. w Bereshit Rabba, sect. 22. fol. 20. 1. Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 4. sect. 5. Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora pr. affirm. 98. x Abot. R. Nathan, c. 31. y De Bello Jud. l. 5. c. 1. z Origen. in Matth. T. 3. Homil. 26. fol. 44. Greg. Nyssen. in diem nat. Christ. Vol. 2. p. 777. Basil. de human. gen. Christ. & Theophylact. in loc. a Targum in Lam. ii. 20. b T. Bab. Maccot, fol. 24. 2. c T. Hieros. Tannioth, fol. 69. 1. Praefat. ad Echa Rabbati, fol. 36. 4. & Echa Rabbati, fol. 52. 4. & 58. 3. Midrash Kohelet, fol. 68. 3. d Echa Rabbati, fol. 55. 1. e Misn. Middot, c. 3. sect. 6. f Maimon. Beth. Habbechira, c. 7. sect. 18, 19, 20. Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 7. fol. 188. 4. g T. Hieros. Taanioth, fol. 69. 1. Echa Rabbati, fol. 53. 1. & 58. 3. Midrash Kobelet, fol. 68. 4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Zachariah son of Barachiah ( ). Broadus gives well the various alternatives in understanding and explaining the presence of “son of Barachiah” here which is not in Lu 11:51. The usual explanation is that the reference is to Zachariah the son of Jehoiada the priest who was slain in the court of the temple (2Ch 24:20ff.). How the words, “son of Barachiah,” got into Matthew we do not know. A half-dozen possibilities can be suggested. In the case of Abel a reckoning for the shedding of his blood was foretold (Ge 4:10) and the same thing was true of the slaying of Zachariah (2Ch 24:22).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Temple [] . Rev., rightly, sanctuary. See on Mt 4:5. Zechariah was slain between the temple proper and the altar of burnt – offering, in the priests ‘ court.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
35. That upon you may come. He not only takes away from them their false boasting, but shows that they had received prophets for a totally different purpose, that no age might be free from the criminality of wicked rebellion; for the pronoun you embraces generally the whole nation from its very commencement. If it be objected, that it is not consistent with the judgment of God that punishment should be inflicted on the children for the sins of the parents, the answer is easy. Since they are all involved in a wicked conspiracy, we ought not to think it strange if God, in punishing all without reserve, make the punishment due to the fathers to fall upon the children. Justly then is the whole nation — in whatever age individuals may have lived — called to account, and likewise punished, for this unceasing contempt. For as God, by an uninterrupted course of patience, has unceasingly contended with the malice of the whole people, so the whole people is justly held guilty of the inflexible obstinacy which continued to the very last; and as every age had conspired to put to death its own prophets, so it is right that a general sentence should be pronounced upon them, and that all the murders, which have been perpetrated with one consent, should be avenged on all.
From the blood of Abel. Though Abel (Gen 4:8) was not slain by the Jews, yet the murder of Abel is imputed to them by Christ, because there is an affinity of wickedness between them and Cain; otherwise there would have been no propriety in saying that righteous blood had been shed by that nation from the beginning of the world. Cain is therefore declared to be the head, and leader, and instigator of the Jewish people, because, ever since they began to slay prophets, they succeeded in the room of him whose imitators they were.
To the blood of Zechariah. He does not speak of Zechariah as the latest martyr; for the Jews did not then put an end to the murder of the prophets, but, on the contrary, their insolence and madness increased from that period; and posterity, who followed them, satiated themselves with the blood which their fathers only tasted. Nor is it because his death was better known, though it is recorded in Scripture. But there is another reason, which, though it deserves attention, has escaped the notice of commentators; in consequence of which they have not only fallen into a mistake, but have likewise involved their readers in a troublesome question. We might suppose it to have arisen from forgetfulness on the part of Christ, that, while he mentions one ancient murder, he passes by a prodigious slaughter which afterwards took place under Manasseh. For until the Jews were carried to Babylon, their wicked persecutions of holy men did not cease; and even while they were still under affliction, we know with what cruelty and rage they pursued Jeremiah, (Jer 32:2.) But our Lord on purpose abstains from reproaching them with recent murders, and selects this murder, which was more ancient—which was also the commencement and source of base licentiousness, and afterwards led them to break out into unbounded cruelty—because it was more suitable to his design. For I have lately explained, that his leading object was to show that this nation, as it did not desist from impiety, must be held guilty of all the murders which had been perpetrated during a long period. Not only, therefore, does he denounce the punishment of their present cruelty, but says that they must be called to account for the murder of Zechariah, as if their own hands had been imbrued in his blood.
There is no probability in the opinion of those who refer this passage to that Zechariah who exhorted the people, after their return from the Babylonish captivity, to build the temple, (Zec 8:9,) and whose prophecies are still in existence. For though the title of the book informs us that he was the son of Barachiah, (Zec 1:1,) yet we nowhere read that he was slain; and it is, forced exposition to say, that he was slain during the period that intervened between the building of the altar and of the temple. But as to the other Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, the sacred history relates what agrees perfectly with this passage; that when true religion had fallen into decay, after the death of his father, through the wicked revolt of the king and of the people, the Spirit of God came upon him, to reprove severely the public idolatry, and that on this account he was stoned in the porch of the temple, (2Ch 24:20.) There is no absurdity in supposing that his father Jehoiada received, in token of respect, the surname of Barachiah, because, having throughout his whole life defended the true worship, he might justly be pronounced to be the Blessed of God. But whether Jehoiada had two names, or whether (as Jerome thinks) there is a mistake in the word, there can be no doubt as to the fact, that Christ refers to that impious stoning of Zechariah which is recorded in 2Ch 24:21
Whom you slew between the temple and the altar. The crime is rendered still more heinous by the circumstance of the place, since they did not revere the sacredness of the temple. Here the temple is put for the outer court, as in other passages. Near it was the altar of burnt offerings, (1Kg 8:64,) so that the priest offered the sacrifices in presence of the people. It is evident, therefore, that there must have been furious rage, when the sight of the altar and of the temple could not restrain the Jews from profaning that sacred place by a detestable murder.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(35) The blood of Zacharias son of Barachias.A very memorable martyrdom is recorded in 2Ch. 24:20-22, in which a prophet, named Zechariah, was stoned in the court of the house of the Lord, at the commandment of the king. That Zacharias was, however, the son of Jehoiada; and the only Zechariah the son of Barachias in the Old Testament, is the minor prophet whose writings occupy the last place but one among the prophetic books of the Old Testament. Of his death we know nothing, and it is not probable, had he been slain in the manner here described, that it would have passed unrecorded. The death of the son of Jehoiada, on the other hand, is not only recorded, as above in 2 Chronicles 24, but had become the subject of popular legends. The blood of the prophet, it was said in the Talmud, would not dry up. It was still bubbling up when Nebuzaradan, the Chaldean commander (Jer. 39:9) took the Temple. No sacrifices availed to stay it, not even the blood of thousands of slaughtered priests. Wild as the story is, it shows, as does the so-called tomb of Zacharias, the impression which that death had made on the minds of men, and explains why it was chosen by our Lord as a representative example. The substitution of Barachias for Jehoiada may be accounted for as the mistake of a transcriber, led by the association of the two names, like that of Jeremy for Zechariah in Mat. 27:9 (where see Note). In the Sinaitic MS. the words son of Barachiah are omitted, but this betrays the hand of a corrector cutting the knot of the difficulty. The assumptions (1) that Jehoiada may have borne Barachiah as a second name, (2) or that he may have had a son of that name, and been really the grandfather of the martyr, are obviously hypotheses invented for the occasion, without a shadow of evidence. Singularly enough, Josephus (Wars, iv. 5, 4) recounts the murder of a Zecharias, the son of Baruch, i.e., Barachiah, as perpetrated in the Temple by the Zealots just before the destruction of Jerusalem. It is possible that this also may not have been without its weight in so linking the two names together in mens minds as to mislead the memory as to the parentage of the older prophet. The list of conjectures is not complete unless we add that one of the Apocryphal Gospels (The Protevangelion of James, chap. 16) records the death of Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, as slain by Herod in the Temple, and near the altar, and that some have supposed that he was the son of Barachias referred to.
Between the temple and the altari.e., between the sanctuary (the word is the same as in Mat. 26:61; Joh. 2:19)the Holy of Holiesand the altar of burnt offerings that stood outside it.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
35. That In order that. This word depends upon the verbs kill, crucify, scourge, and persecute. Ye shall persecute them as if with the purpose that all this wrath may come upon you. This may be considered, however, a case where the inevitable effect is spoken of as the intended effect. All the righteous blood shed upon the earth That is, righteous blood of the history and line of Israel. Our Lord is not speaking of righteous men, for instance, among pagan nations. This is shown by the fact that he speaks only of martyrs in the Old Testament pedigree, from Abel to Zacharias. From the blood of righteous Abel Who was the first martyr. Blood of Zacharias The last of the prophets whose martyrdom is, according to the arrangement of the Hebrew canon, recorded in the Old Testament.
There has been much discussion upon the true identity of this Zechariah, inasmuch as the martyr in 2Ch 24:21, was the son of Jehoiada. But Jehoiada and Barachia are words of the same meaning. This Zechariah was the subject of Jewish legends, and it is not improbable, though there is no proof, that in our Lord’s day the one name was substituted for the other in ordinary discourse. The place where Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was slain accords with the words of Jesus; and his dying exclamation, “The Lord require it,” accords with the thought our Lord here expresses very strikingly. Jesus here couples the first and last of Old Testament martyrs.
Ye slew Our Lord here identifies them with the whole guilty line of the wicked party of Israel in all ages. A nation has its youth, its manhood, its age, its death. The vices and crimes of its earlier generations are often inherited by its later. Punishment is often delayed until the crimes of whole ages are temporarily expiated. And this is in no way unjust. Each man may repent, and be saved in the world to come. But the nation must be publicly made an example of divine justice upon national crimes, continued through a long series of years. And though the temporal punishment be commensurate with the guilt of their whole history, not a man really suffers more than his own sins deserve.
Between the temple and the altar Referring to our ground plan of the temple, the reader can designate the sacred locality between the great brazen altar of burnt offering and the temple edifice.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“That on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous to the blood of Zachariah, son of Barachiah, whom you slew between the sanctuary and the altar.”
And as a result of this behaviour they would also take the guilt of all the prophets who had died prior to this, on themselves, for all of them had died in preparing the way for the Messiah, so that to reject Him and His disciples would be to take on themselves the whole burden of guilt for those who had died before. For the idea of blood coming on someone in this way see Jer 26:15. The thought has a Hebrew/Aramaic background.
Alternately the point is that God has continually held back His judgment up to this point, but now that the final day of salvation has arrived will release it on the present generation who will reject and crucify His Son. Probably there is an element of both in the words. The sins of the fathers will be visited on the children, because they are like their fathers.
For the blood of Abel the righteous see Genesis 4. He too was slain by a man who would not face up to his own sinfulness. For the blood of ‘Zachariah the son of Berechiah’ we probably have to look to the Jewish tradition of the time of Jesus, which sadly is not available to us. For this was probably the Zechariah, son of Berechiah, of Zechariah 1. Certainly we know that he had many dangerous opponents whom he had outfaced (Zec 10:3; Zec 11:8), and his words had undoubtedly stirred up deep antagonism against him (Zec 11:8; Zec 11:12-14; Zec 13:7), as he described them as worthless shepherds (Mat 11:16-17) so such a death is quite likely to have happened to him and to have been remembered in the tradition. He may thus well have been the last prophet to have been martyred. The description ‘between the sanctuary and the altar’ is specific and suggests some specific and well known tradition. This makes it unlikely that this refers to Zechariah the ‘son’ (probably grandson, and therefore he could have been a son of Berechiah, which was not an uncommon name, compare 1Ch 6:39) of Jehoiada, who while he was slain in the courtyard of the Lord’s house (2Ch 24:21), was not said to have been slain in this specific place (the priestly section of the courtyard). If Jesus had been referring to him why would He not have cited what Scripture actually said about him? Other suggestions include the obvious one that it was an unknown prophet of whom we know nothing. But he was clearly well known in Jesus’ day.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 23:35-36. That upon you may came all the righteous blood, &c. The meaning is, “As by your cruel and persecuting temper you seem to approve of all the murders which have been committed since the beginning of the world, you shall be as severely punished as if you yourselves had been the authors of them.” This refers to temporal punishment, because in the life to come men will not be punished for the sins of others to which they were not accessary. But Dr. Campbell makesthe following observation on this passage: “As I understand it, this expression must not be interpreted as implying that those individual crimes, which happened before the time of the people then living, would be laid to their charge; but that, with every species of cruelty, oppression, and murder, which had been exemplified in former ages, they of that age would be found chargeable; inasmuch as they had permitted no kind of wickedness to be peculiar to those who had preceded them; but had carefully imitated, and even exceeded, all the most atrocious deeds of their ancestors from the beginning of the world. There is no hyperbole in the representation. The account given of them by Josephus, who was no Christian, but one of themselves, shews, in the strongest light, how justly they are here characterized by our Lord.” The Zechariah here spoken of, is thought by many learned commentators to be that Zechariah who is expressly said to have been slain in so remarkable a manner, between the temple and the altar, 2Ch 24:20-21.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 23:35 . , . . .] Teleology of the divine decree: in order that all the righteous (innocent) blood (Jon 1:14 ; Joe 3:19 ; Psa 94:21 ; 1Ma 1:37 ) may come upon you, i.e . the punishment for shedding it. Comp. Mat 27:25 . The scribes and Pharisees are regarded as the representatives of the people, and for whom, as their leaders, they are held responsible .
] “ter hoc dicitur uno hoc versu, magna vi,” Bengel. And it is , because it contains the life (see on Act 15:20 ). Comp. Delitzsch, Psych , p. 242.
] present , conceived of as a thing going on in the present, Khner, II. 1, p. 116. A vivid picture, in which we seem to see the blood still actually flowing. On the later form for , see Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 726.
] according to the canonical narrative (see below).
] refers to 2Ch 24:20 , where Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, is said to have been stoned to death by order of King Joash, . Comp. Joseph. Antt. ix. 8. 3. The detail contained in , . . ., renders the narrative more precise, and serves to emphasize the atrocious character of a deed perpetrated, as this was, on so sacred a spot. Since, according to the arrangement of the books in the Hebrew Canon, Genesis stood at the beginning and 2 Chronicles at the end, and since the series here indicated opens with the case of Abel (Gen 4:10 ; Heb 11:4 ), so this (2Ch 24:20 ) is regarded as the last instance of the murder of a prophet, although, chronologically, that of Urijah (Jer 26:23 ) belongs to a more recent date. The Rabbinical writers likewise point to the murder of this Zacharias as one of a peculiarly deplorable nature; see Targum Lam 2:20 ; Lightfoot on our passage. And how admirably appropriate to the scope of this passage are the words of the dying Zechariah: , 2Ch 24:22 ; comp. with Gen 4:10 ! If this latter is the Zacharias referred to in the text, then, inasmuch as the assumption that his father had two names (scholion in Matthaei, Chrysostom, Luther, Beza, Grotius, Elsner, Kanne, bibl. Unters. II. p. 198 ff.) is no less arbitrary than the supposition that . is a gloss (Wassenbergh, Kuinoel), there must, in any case, be some mistake in the quoting of the father’s name (de Wette, Bleek, Baumgarten-Crusius). It is probable that Jesus Himself did not mention the father’s name at all (Luk 11:51 ), and that it was introduced into the text from oral tradition, into which an error had crept from confounding the person here in question with the better known prophet of the same name, and whose father was called Barachias (Zec 1:1 ). Comp. Holtzmann, p. 404. This tradition was followed by Matthew; but in the Gospel of the Hebrews the wrong name was carefully avoided, and the correct one, viz. Jehoiada, inserted instead (Hilgenfeld, N. T. extra can. IV. p. 17, 11). According to others, the person referred to is that Zacharias who was murdered at the commencement of the Jewish war, and whose death is thus recorded by Joseph. Bell. iv. 6. 4 : ( ) . So Hammond, Krebs, Hug, Credner, Einl. I. p. 207, Gfrrer, Baur, Keim. It is the opinion of Hug that Jesus, as speaking prophetically, made use of the future tense, but that Matthew substituted a past tense instead, because when this Gospel was written the murder had already been committed (after the conquest of Gamala). Keim likewise finds in this a hint as to the date of the composition of Matthew. But apart from the fact that the names Barachias and Baruch are not one and the same, and that the reading in the passage just quoted from Josephus is doubtful (Var. ), the alleged substitution of the aorist for the future would be so flagrantly preposterous, that a careful writer could scarcely be expected to do anything of the sort. As against this whole hypothesis, see besides Theile in Winer’s neu. krit. Journ. II. p. 405 ff., Kuhn in the Jahrb. d. Theol. I. p. 350 ff. Finally, we may mention, only for the sake of recording them, the ancient opinions (in Chrysostom and Theophylact) that the Zacharias referred to in our passage was either the minor prophet of that name, or the father of the Baptist (see Protevang. Jac. 23). The latter view is that of Origen, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Theophylact, and several others among the Fathers (see Thilo, Praef. p. lxiv. f.); and recently of Mller in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 673 ff.
, . . .] between the temple proper and the altar of burnt-offerings in the priests’ court.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 35. From the blood of righteous Abel ] God reckons of men by their righteousness, Rom 10:4-6 The righteous (let him dwell where he will and by whom) is better than his neighbour, saith Solomon. This was Cain’s grief, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother; and wherefore slew he him, but because his own works were evil and his brother’s righteous? So Alphonsus Diazius, that Cain the second, slew his brother John, because he could not win him to Popery, 1Jn 3:12 . And I would this patriarch of the devil (as one calls Cain) did not still live in his sons and successors, who carry about his club that is red with Abel’s blood, Imo ut rem sacram odorant et venerantur, think they do a goodly act in killing up the poor lambs of Christ. Caesar is said to have slain Grecinus Julius, for this reason alone, for that he was a better man than that it was for the tyrant’s behoof to suffer him to live, Quod melior vir erat quam esse quenquam tyranno expediret. (Senec. 2, de Benefic.)
Unto the blood of Zacharias ] Most unworthily slain by his pupil Joas (as Linus likewise was by his scholar Hercules for a few sharp words that he gave him as he was teaching him). a Our Saviour instanceth in this Zechariah as the last prophet mentioned in the Scripture to have been slain by them, 2Ch 24:20-22 , though they slew many more, not elsewhere mentioned, unless it be in that little Book of Martyrs, as one fitly calleth the eleventh to the Hebrews.
a Cum ille Herculem verbulo asperiore inter erudiendum affatus esset, &c. Bucholcer.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
35. ] , not ‘ in such a way that ’ (?), as Webst. and Wilk.: but strictly ‘in order that.’
. or is a common expression in the O.T. See 4 Kings Mat 21:16 ; Mat 24:4 : Jer 33:1-26 :(26) 15; and more especially Lam 4:13 , which perhaps our Lord referred to in speaking this.
. ] Thus in Babylon, Rev 18:24 , is found the blood of all that were slain upon the earth . Every such signal judgment is the judgment for a series of long-crying crimes and these judgments do not exhaust God’s anger, Isa 9:12 ; Isa 9:17 ; Isa 9:21 .
The murder of Abel was the first in the strife between unrighteousness and holiness, and as these Jews represent, in their conduct both in former times and now, the murderer of the first, they must bear the vengeance of the whole in God’s day of wrath.
Who Zacharias son of Barachias is has been much disputed. We may conclude with certainty that it cannot be (as Aug [162] and Greswell suppose) a future Zacharias, mentioned by Josephus, B. J. iv. 5. 4, as son of Baruch, and slain in the temple just before the destruction of Jerusalem for our Lord evidently speaks of an event past , and never prophesies in this manner elsewhere. Origen has preserved a tradition (in Matt. Comm. Series, 24, vol. iii. p. 846), that Zacharias father of John the Baptist was slain by them in the temple; but in the absence of all other authority, this must be suspected as having arisen from the difficulty of the allusion here. Most likely (see Lightfoot in loc. and note on Luk 11:49 ) it is Zacharias the son of Jehoiada , who was killed there, 2Ch 24:21 , and of whose blood the Jews had a saying, that it never was washed away till the temple was burnt at the captivity.
[162] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430
does not occur in Luk 11:51 , and perhaps was not uttered by the Lord Himself, but may have been inserted by mistake, as Zacharias the prophet was son of Barachiah, see Zec 1:1 ; a circumstance suppressed by Bp. Wordsworth in his elaborate account of the mystical reason of the patronymic being used here, as “signifying Son of the Blessed, which was a name of Christ Himself.” See his note.
. . . . . . ] He was killed in the priests’ court , where the altar of burnt-offerings was. On Mat 23:36 , see note on ch. Mat 24:34 . It is no objection to the interpretation there maintained, that the whole period of the Jewish course of crime is not filled up by it: the death of Abel can by no explanation be brought within its limits or responsibility; and our Lord’s saying reaches far deeper than a mere announcement of their responsibility for what they themselves had done . The Jews stood in the central point of God’s dealings with men ; and as they were the chosen for the election of grace, so, rejecting God and His messengers, they became, in an especial and awful manner, vessels of wrath.
Our Lord mentions this last murder , not as being the last even before His own day, but because it was connected specially with the cry of the dying man , ‘The Lord look upon it and require it .’ Compare Gen 4:10 . This death of Zacharias was the last in the arrangement of the Hebrew Canon of the O.T., though chronologically that of Urijah, Jer 26:23 , was later.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 23:35 . : divine intention read in the light of result. God sent messengers that they might be killed, and that Israel by killing them might deserve to suffer in the final generation wrath to the uttermost. Vide on Mat 22:7 . , thrice named: “ter hoc dicitur uno hoc versu magna vi,” Bengel. . ., etc., from the blood of Abel, the first martyr, mentioned in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, to the blood of Zechariah, the prophet named in the last book (2Ch 24:20-22 ). , the designation of the last but one of the minor prophets, applied here to the other Zechariah, by inadvertence either of the evangelist or of an early copyist. , whom ye (through your spiritual ancestors) slew; fact as stated in 2Ch 24:21 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
That = So that.
upon. Greek. epi.
blood. Put by Figure of speech Metonymy (of the Subject) for blood-guiltiness (App-6).
righteous Abel = Abel the righteous [one]. Gen 4:4. Compare Heb 11:4.
Zacharias son of Barachias. Not the son of Jehoiada (2Ch 24:20, 2Ch 24:21) but Zechariah the prophet (Zec 1:1, Zec 1:7), who, we here learn (by Figure of speech Hysteresis, App-6) was killed in the same way. And why not? Are there not many examples of historical coincidences? Why should the Lord single out “Zacharias the son of Jehoiada” then Neh 800 years before, instead of the later Zacharias (the prophet) some 400 years before? And why may it not he prophetic of another “Zechariah, the son of Baruch” who was thus martyred some thirty-six years after? See Josephus (Wars, iv. 5. 4.)
ye slew. This may be taken as the Figure of speech Prolepsis (Ampliatio), App-6, speaking of future things as present. See Mat 26:2. Psa 93:1; Psa 97:1; Psa 99:1. Isa 37:22; Isa 48:5-7. Luk 3:19, Luk 3:20. Compare Mat 11:2, &c.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
35.] , not in such a way that (?), as Webst. and Wilk.: but strictly in order that.
. or is a common expression in the O.T. See 4 Kings Mat 21:16; Mat 24:4 : Jer 33:1-26 :(26) 15; and more especially Lam 4:13, which perhaps our Lord referred to in speaking this.
.] Thus in Babylon, Rev 18:24, is found the blood of all that were slain upon the earth. Every such signal judgment is the judgment for a series of long-crying crimes-and these judgments do not exhaust Gods anger, Isa 9:12; Isa 9:17; Isa 9:21.
The murder of Abel was the first in the strife between unrighteousness and holiness, and as these Jews represent, in their conduct both in former times and now, the murderer of the first, they must bear the vengeance of the whole in Gods day of wrath.
Who Zacharias son of Barachias is has been much disputed. We may conclude with certainty that it cannot be (as Aug[162] and Greswell suppose) a future Zacharias, mentioned by Josephus, B. J. iv. 5. 4, as son of Baruch, and slain in the temple just before the destruction of Jerusalem-for our Lord evidently speaks of an event past, and never prophesies in this manner elsewhere. Origen has preserved a tradition (in Matt. Comm. Series, 24, vol. iii. p. 846), that Zacharias father of John the Baptist was slain by them in the temple; but in the absence of all other authority, this must be suspected as having arisen from the difficulty of the allusion here. Most likely (see Lightfoot in loc. and note on Luk 11:49) it is Zacharias the son of Jehoiada, who was killed there, 2Ch 24:21, and of whose blood the Jews had a saying, that it never was washed away till the temple was burnt at the captivity.
[162] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430
does not occur in Luk 11:51, and perhaps was not uttered by the Lord Himself, but may have been inserted by mistake, as Zacharias the prophet was son of Barachiah, see Zec 1:1; a circumstance suppressed by Bp. Wordsworth in his elaborate account of the mystical reason of the patronymic being used here, as signifying Son of the Blessed, which was a name of Christ Himself. See his note.
. . . . . .] He was killed in the priests court, where the altar of burnt-offerings was. On Mat 23:36, see note on ch. Mat 24:34. It is no objection to the interpretation there maintained, that the whole period of the Jewish course of crime is not filled up by it: the death of Abel can by no explanation be brought within its limits or responsibility; and our Lords saying reaches far deeper than a mere announcement of their responsibility for what they themselves had done. The Jews stood in the central point of Gods dealings with men; and as they were the chosen for the election of grace, so, rejecting God and His messengers, they became, in an especial and awful manner, vessels of wrath.
Our Lord mentions this last murder, not as being the last even before His own day, but because it was connected specially with the cry of the dying man, The Lord look upon it and require it. Compare Gen 4:10. This death of Zacharias was the last in the arrangement of the Hebrew Canon of the O.T., though chronologically that of Urijah, Jer 26:23, was later.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 23:35. , may come) This is repeated in Mat 23:36, sc. , shall come. Cf. Luk 11:50, etc.-, all) especially that of the Messiah Himself. Cf. Luk 13:33.-, blood) This word occurs thrice in this one verse with great force.-, which is being shed) The present tense is used to show that the blood-shedding was not yet concluded.- , on the whole earth) Cf. Gen 4:11.- , Zacharias the son of Barachias) whose prophecy and death are mentioned in 2Ch 24:20-22.[1016] The Jews say a great deal about him. See Lightfoot.[1017]- , the Temple) Jesus spake these words in the Temple: in the Temple especial vengeance was to be executed hereafter.
[1016] And who, as Michaelis, in der Einl., etc., T. ii., p. m. 1078,1079, shows at large, is called in the Gospel of the Nazarenes. according to Jeromes statement, not the Son of Barachias (as it is found in our Greek copies), but the Son of Jehoiada. Indeed it would not be amiss to compare this with what S. R. D. Crusius, Hypomn., p. i. p. 301, suggests, viz., that Jehoiada [= the knowledge of the Lord] received the surname from the Blessed Jehovah, because that he had preserved the house of David, by having stealthily saved Joash from being murdered, and by having subsequently placed him on his fathers throne, after having slain Athaliah, owing to which meritorious deed he was ever after commonly called by this honourable title.-E. B.
[1017] To understand these words of a certain Zacharias, the son of Baruch, a person of proved excellence, who was killed in the midst of the temple (as Josephus records) a short while before its destruction, as Kornmann and others think, we are not bound to the end that the glory of Christs Omniscience may be maintained inviolate: for, in fact, this prophecy concerning vengeance impending over that generation, as well as many other prophecies, was proved by its fulfilment. Luke, in the passage in question, is speaking only of Prophets: but the Zacharias of Josephus was not a prophet. Indeed Christ had many reasons for making mention of the former Zacharias above others. It is such personages in this passage (as in Eze 14:14) that are especially referred to and quoted, who have their names recorded in Scripture: and that ancient Zacharias, as in the similar instance of Abel, was accounted by the Jews without dispute as a Saint and Prophet; nay, indeed the guilt incurred in his case was not altogether obliterated from the memory of the Jews.-Harm., p. 472.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Abel
Jesus’ confirmation of Gen 4:8-10. Cf. Heb 12:24.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
upon: Gen 9:5, Gen 9:6, Num 35:33, Deu 21:7, Deu 21:8, 2Ki 21:16, 2Ki 24:4, Isa 26:21, Jer 2:30, Jer 2:34, Jer 26:15, Jer 26:23, Lam 4:13, Lam 4:14, Rev 18:24
the blood of righteous: Gen 4:8, Heb 11:4, Heb 12:24, 1Jo 3:11, 1Jo 3:12
unto: 2Ch 24:20-22, Zec 1:1, Luk 11:51
Reciprocal: Exo 32:34 – the day Lev 26:39 – and also Deu 5:9 – visiting 2Ki 9:7 – I may avenge 2Ki 11:11 – by the altar 2Ki 16:14 – the brazen 2Ch 28:13 – add more Psa 9:12 – When Psa 69:24 – Pour Psa 79:3 – Their Ecc 7:15 – there is a just Isa 5:23 – take Isa 14:21 – slaughter Isa 24:10 – of confusion Isa 24:20 – the transgression Jer 1:16 – And I Jer 7:6 – and shed Jer 19:4 – filled Jer 26:19 – Thus Eze 9:9 – and the land Eze 11:6 – General Eze 22:2 – bloody city Eze 24:6 – Woe Hos 4:2 – toucheth Joe 2:17 – between Zec 11:6 – I will no Zec 13:8 – two Mal 4:6 – lest Mat 21:41 – He will Mat 23:30 – the blood Luk 13:3 – ye shall Joh 10:31 – General Joh 11:48 – and the Act 5:28 – blood Act 5:33 – took Act 28:4 – a murderer Heb 11:37 – were slain Jam 5:6 – have Rev 6:11 – until
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
CONTRAST AND TYPE
The blood of righteous Abel.
Mat 23:35
The blood of Abel speaks in two voicesby contrast and by type.
I. By contrast.The voice of thy brothers blood crieth unto Me from the ground. Vengeance,dire vengeance! The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from us all sin. Mercy,all mercy!
II. By type.Abel was a shepherd, a keeper of sheep; Christ is a Shepherd, a Keeper of sheep. Abel offered a lamb; Christ offered that Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. Abel gave his best; Christ gave His best for the Church. The Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering; the Lord looked to Christ and His offering, and His soul was well pleased. Abel was a martyr for truth; Christ was a martyr for truth. Abel was killed by his brother; His brethren killed Christ. Abel was killed for jealousy; Christ was killed for jealousy. Abels blood lived before God, and was eloquent after he died; Christs blood lives, and is eloquent for ever. The murderer of Abel was a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; the murderers of Christ are fugitives and vagabonds upon the earth.
III. The Blood of Christ.It was affectingly natural that just as He was approaching His own death, Christs thought should travel back to that death of Abel upon the horizon of time, which was the prototype of His own. Never forget what the blood of Christ is. If the blood of righteous Abel shall cry to God for His avenging hand, how much more will the blood of His righteous servant justify many! The blood is the life. And that blood which Christ shed, was the life of His humanity. And He is the human head of a human body, the Church. Therefore that blood is the lifethe true life, the only life, the eternal life of every member of the body, the whole Church of the living God.
The Rev. James Vaughan.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
3:35
See the comments on verse 32. By filling up the measure of their wicked ancestors, the scribes and Pharisees brought to a climax the long career of murder beginning with the slaying of Abel and including Zacharias in 2Ch 24:20-21.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
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.
[Unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias.] That the discourse here is concerning Zacharias the son of Jehoiada, killed by king Joash, we make appear by these arguments:
I. Because no other Zacharias is said to have been slain before these words were spoken by Christ. Those things that are spoke of Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, are dreams; and those of Zacharias, one of the twelve prophets, are not much better. The killing of our Zacharias in the Temple is related in express words: and why, neglecting this, should we seek for another, which in truth we shall nowhere find in any author of good credit?
II. The Jews observe, that the death of this Zacharias, the son of Jehoiada, was made memorable by a signal character [nota] and revenge: of the martyrdom of the other Zacharias they say nothing at all.
Hear both the Talmuds: “R. Jochanan said, Eighty thousand priests were killed for the blood of Zacharias. R. Judah asked R. Acha, ‘Whereabouts they killed Zacharias, whether in the Court of the Women, or in the Court of Israel?’ He answered, ‘Neither in the Court of Israel nor in the Court of the women, but in the Court of the Priests.’ And that was not done to his blood which useth to be done to the blood of a ram or a kid. Concerning these it is written, ‘And he shall pour out his blood, and cover it with dust.’ But here it is written, ‘Her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock, she poured it not upon the ground.’ And why this? ‘That it might cause fury to come up to take vengeance. I have set her blood upon a rock, that it should not be covered.’ They committed seven wickednesses in that day. They killed a priest, a prophet, and a judge: they shed the blood of an innocent man: they polluted the court: and that day was the sabbath day, and the day of Expiation. When therefore Nebuzar-adan went up thither, he saw the blood bubbling: so he said to them, ‘What meaneth this?’ ‘It is the blood,’ say they, ‘of calves, lambs, and rams, which we have offered on the altar.’ ‘Bring then,’ said he, ‘calves, lambs, and rams, that I may try whether this be their blood.’ They brought them and slew them, and that blood still bubbled, but their blood did not bubble. ‘Discover the matter to me,’ said he, ‘or I will tear your flesh with iron rakes.’ Then they said to him, ‘This was a priest, a prophet, and a judge, who foretold to Israel all these evils which we have suffered from you, and we rose up against him, and slew him.’ ‘But I,’ saith he, ‘will appease him.’ He brought the Rabbins, and slew them upon that blood; and yet it was not pacified: he brought the children out of the school, and slew them upon it, and yet it was not quiet: he brought the young priests, and slew them upon it, and yet it was not quiet. So that he slew upon it ninety-four thousand, and yet it was not quiet. He drew near to it himself, and said, ‘O Zacharias, Zacharias! Thou hast destroyed the best of thy people’ [that is, they have been killed for your sake]; ‘would you have me destroy all?’ Then it was quiet, and did not bubble any more,” etc.
The truth of this story we leave to the relators: that which makes to our present purpose we observe: that it was very improbable, nay, next to impossible, that those that heard the words of Christ (concerning Zacharias slain before the Temple and the altar) could understand it of any other but of this, concerning whom and whose blood they had such famous and signal memory; and of any other Zacharias slain in the Temple there was a profound silence. In Josephus, indeed, we meet with the mention of one Zacharias, the son of Baruch, (which is the same thing with Barachias,) killed in the Temple, not long before the destruction of it: whom some conjecture to be prophetically marked out here by our Saviour: but this is somewhat hard, when Christ expressly speaks of time past, ye slew; and when, by no art nor arguments, it can be proved that this Zacharias ought to be reckoned into the number of prophets and martyrs.
There are two things here that stick with interpreters, so that they cannot so freely subscribe to our Zacharias: 1. That he lived and died long before the first Temple was destroyed; when the example would have seemed more home and proper to be taken under the second Temple, and that now near expiring. 2. That he was plainly and notoriously the son of Jehoiada; but this is called by Christ “the son of Barachias.”
To which we, after others who have discoursed at large upon this matter, return only thus much:
I. That Christ plainly intended to bring examples out of the Old Testament; and he brought two, which how much the further off they seemed to be from deriving any guilt to this generation, so much heavier the guilt is if they do derive it. For a Jew would argue, “What hath a Jew to do with the blood of Abel; killed almost two thousand years before Abraham the father of the Jews was born? And what hath this generation to do with the blood of Zacharias; which was expiated by cruel plagues and calamities many ages since?” Nay, saith Christ, this generation hath arrived to that degree of impiety, wickedness, and guilt, that even these remote examples of guilt relate, and are to be applied to it: and while you think that the blood of Abel; and the following martyrs doth nothing concern you, and believe that the blood of Zacharias hath been long ago expiated with a signal punishment; I say unto you, that the blood both of the one and the other, and of all the righteous men killed in the interval of time between them, shall be required of this generation; 1. Because you kill him who is of more value than they all. 2. Because by your wickedness you so much kindle the anger of God, that he is driven to cut off his old church; namely, the people that hath been of a long time in covenant with him. For when Christ saith, That on you may come all the righteous blood; etc.; it is not so much to be understood of their personal guilt as to that blood, as of their guilt for the killing of Christ, in whose death, the guilt of the murder of all those his types and members is in some measure included: and it is to be understood of the horrible destruction of that generation, than which no former ages have ever seen any more woeful or amazing, nor shall any future, before the funeral of the world itself. As if all the guilt of the blood of righteous men, that had been shed from the beginning of the world, had flowed together upon that generation.
II. To the second, which has more difficulty, namely, that Zacharias is here called the son of Barachias; when he was the son of Jehoiada; we will observe, by the way, these two things out of the writings of the Jews, before we come to determine the thing itself:
1. That that very Zacharias of whom we speak is by the Chaldee paraphrast called the son of Iddo. For thus saith he on Lam 3:20; “‘Is it fit that the daughters of Israel should eat the fruit of their womb?’ etc. The rule of justice answered and said, ‘Is it also fit that they should slay a priest and prophet in the Temple of the Lord, as ye slew Zacharias and the son of Iddo; the high priest and faithful prophet, in the house of the Sanctuary, on the day of Expiation?’ ” etc.
2. In the place of Isaiah, concerning Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, the Jews have these things: “It is written, ‘I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Barachiah,’ Isa 8:1. But what is the reason that Uriah is joined with Zechariah? For Uriah was under the first Temple; Zechariah under the second: but the Scripture joineth the prophecy of Zechariah to the prophecy of Uriah. By Urias it is written, ‘For your sakes Sion shall be ploughed as a field.’ By Zechariah it is written, ‘As yet old men and ancient women shall sit in the streets of Jerusalem.’ When the prophecy of Uriah is fulfilled, the prophecy of Zechariah shall also be fulfilled.” To the same sense also speaks the Chaldee paraphrast upon the place: “‘And I took unto me faithful witnesses.’ The curses which I foretold I would bring, in the prophecy of Uriah the priest, behold they are come to pass: likewise all the blessings which I foretold I would bring, in the prophecy of Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, I will bring to pass.” See also there RR. Jarchi and Kimchi.
From both these we observe two things: 1. If Iddo did not signify the same thing with Jehoiada to the Jewish nation, why might not our Saviour have the same liberty to call Barachias the father of Zacharias, as the Chaldee paraphrast had to call him Iddo? 2. It is plain that the Jews looked upon those words of Isaiah as the words of God speaking to Isaiah, not of Isaiah relating a matter of fact historically…
For if it had been to be construed in the preter tense, it should have been pointed by Kamets, And I caused to witness. Which being well observed, (as I confess it hath not been by me heretofore,) the difficulty under our hand is resolved, as I imagine, very clearly: and I suppose that Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah in Isaiah is the very same with our Zacharias the son of Jehoiada; and that the sense of Isaiah comes to this: in that and the foregoing chapter there is a discourse of the future destruction of Damascus, Samaria, and Judea. For a confirmation of the truth of this prophecy, God makes use of a double testimony: first, he commands the prophet Isaiah to write, over and over again, in a great volume, from the beginning to the end, “To hasten the spoil, he hastened the prey”: and this volume should be an undoubted testimony to them, that God would certainly bring on and hasten the forementioned spoiling and destruction. “And moreover (saith God), I will raise up to myself two faithful martyrs,” (or witnesses,) who shall testify and seal the same thing with their words and with their blood, namely, Uriah the priest, who shall hereafter be crowned with martyrdom for this very thing, Jer 26:20; Jer 26:23; and Zechariah the son of Barachiah, or Jehoiada, who is lately already crowned: he; the first martyr under the first Temple; this; the last. Hear, thou Jew, who taxest Matthew in this place: your own authors assert, that Uriah the priest is to be understood by that Uriah who was killed by Jehoiakim; and that truly. We also assert, that Zechariah the son of Jehoiadah is to be understood by Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah; and that Matthew and Christ do not at all innovate in this name of Barachias, but did only pronounce the same things concerning the father of the martyr Zacharias, which God himself had pronounced before them by the prophet Isaiah.
Objection. But since our Saviour took examples from the Old Testament, why did he not rather say, “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Uriah the priest?” that is, from the beginning of the world to the end of the first Temple? I answer,
1. The killing of Zechariah was more horrible, as he was more high in dignity; and as the place wherein he was killed was more holy.
2. The consent of the whole people as more universal to his death.
3. He was a more proper and apparent type of Christ.
4. The requiring of vengeance is mentioned only concerning Abel and Zechariah: “Behold, the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me.” And, “Let the Lord look upon it, and require it.”
5. In this the death of Christ agrees exactly with the death of Zechariah; that, although the city and nation of the Jews did not perish till about forty years after the death of Christ, yet they gave themselves their death’s wound in wounding Christ. So it was also in the case of Zechariah: Jerusalem and the people of the Jews stood indeed many years after the death of Zechariah, but from that time began to sink, and draw towards ruin. Consult the story narrowly, and you will plainly find, that all the affairs of the Jews began to decline and grow worse and worse, from that time when “blood touched blood,” (the blood of the sacrificer mingled with the blood of the sacrifice), and when “the people became contentious and rebellious against the priest.”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 23:35. That upon you may come. The result would be further guilt, filling up the cup of iniquity; the end would be judgment. The inevitableness, suddenness, power, and grandeur of the judgment is intimated.
All the righteous blood, i.e., the punishment for it. Comp. Sam. Mat 4:13; 2Ki 21:16, and especially Rev 18:24.
The blood of Abel the righteous. The first one slain in consequence of the strife between unrighteousness and holiness. The blood of Abel (Gen 4:10; Heb 12:24; comp. Rev 6:10), was a symbol of avenging justice, and even the blood of Christ has a condemning office.
Zachariah, the son of Barachiah. Probably the person of that name, whose death under such circumstances is mentioned in 2Ch 24:20-22. Two difficulties present themselves: 1. This person is said to be the son of Jehoiada, not of Barachiah. But as Jehoiada died at the age of 130 (2Ch 24:15), and Zachariah was specially called to be a prophet after his death, the latter was probably a grandson of the former. Matthew, with his usual exactness, inserting the name of the father. Possibly Jehoiada was also called Barachiah. Some think the fathers name an insertion by later copyists, who supposed the reference was to Zachariah the prophet, whose fathers name was Barachiah (Zec 1:1). 2. This was not the last Old Testament martyr; Urijah was murdered afterwards (Jer 26:23). But the book of 2 Chron. stood last in the Hebrew Bible, and the case of Zachariah was a marked one in view of the place between the sanctuary and the altar, and of his death-cry: The Lord seeth and will avenge it. As regards the application to other persons, we either have no trustworthy record of their martyrdom (e.g., Zechariah the prophet, Zacharias the father of John the Baptist), or the death took place after this discourse. Our Lord distinctly refers to what occurred in past generations.
Ye slew, i.e.., your nation. In their present conduct they were partakers of the same sin.
Between the sanctuary, i.e., the temple proper, and the altar, which stood in front of it.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
23:35 {11} 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 {y} Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
(11) The punishment of those who persecute the gospel, under the pretence of zeal.
(y) Of Joiada, who was also called Barach-jah, that is, blessed of the Lord.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus was not saying that the Jews who rejected Him were responsible for the deaths of all the righteous martyrs throughout biblical history. They simply were the ones who would add the last measure of guilt that would result in the outpouring of God’s wrath for all those murders.
"In the case of the Jews, the limit of misbehavior had been almost reached, and with the murder of the Messiah and His Apostles would be transgressed." [Note: Plummer, p. 320-21.]
Abel was the first righteous person murdered that Scripture records (Gen 4:8). We do not know exactly when Zechariah the prophet, the son of Berechiah, died, but he began prophesying as a young man in 520 B.C. and delivered some prophecies in 518 B.C. He may have been the last martyr in Old Testament history. [Note: See Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, p. 425.] However according to Jewish tradition this Zechariah died peacefully at an advanced age. [Note: Lives of the Prophets 15:6.]
Many students of this problem believe that the Zechariah to whom Jesus referred was the priest whom the Jews stoned in the temple courtyard (2Ch 24:20-22). That man died hundreds of years earlier than Zechariah the prophet. Jesus seems to have been summarizing all the righteous people the Jews had slain throughout Old Testament history. Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was the last martyr in the last book of the Hebrew Bible, so Jesus may have been saying the equivalent of "all the martyrs from Genesis to Revelation." Nevertheless that Zechariah was the son of Jehoiada, not Berechiah, and Jesus mentioned Berechiah as the father of the Zechariah He meant (cf. 2Ch 24:22). Berechiah may have been the actual father of this martyr, and the writer of 2 Chronicles may have designated him as the son of his famous grandfather, Jehoiada. The fact that Abel’s name begins with the letter A and Zechariah’s name with the letter Z is simply coincidence. Z is not the last letter in either the Hebrew or the Greek alphabet.