John Calvin Commentary Zechariah 7:1-3

"And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Darius, that the word of Jehovah came unto Zechariah in the fourth [day] of the ninth month, even in Chislev. Now [they of] Beth-el had sent Sharezer and Regem-melech, and their men, to entreat the favor of Jehovah, [and] to speak unto the priests of the house of Jehovah of hosts, and to the prophets, saying, Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?" — Zechariah 7:1-3 (ASV)

There is no vision here, but the answer which Zechariah was commanded to give to the messengers of the captives, for he says that some had been sent from Chaldea to offer sacrifices to God, and at the same time to inquire whether the fast, which they had appointed when the city was taken and destroyed, was to be observed.

But there is some ambiguity in the words of the Prophet, for it is doubtful whether the two whom he names, namely Sherezer and Regem-melech, together with the others, had sent the messengers who are mentioned, or whether they themselves came and brought the message from the captives. But this is a matter of no great moment.

As to the question itself, I am inclined to adopt the view of those who think that these two came with their associates to Jerusalem, and in the name of them all inquired about the fast, as we shall see later.

The Jews think that these were Persian princes, but this opinion is frivolous. They are thus accustomed to interpret everything for the glory of their own nation without any discretion or judgment, as if it had been greatly desired by the Jews for two Persians to go up to the temple.

But there is no need here for a long discussion. For if we consider the Prophet’s design, we may easily conclude that these were Jews who had been sent by the exiles, both to offer gifts and to inquire about the fast, as the Prophet tells us.

The sum of the whole, then, is that Sherezer and Regem-melech, and their companions, came to the temple, and that they also asked counsel of the priests and Prophets, whether the fast of the fifth month was still to be observed.

It must first be observed that, though all had not enough courage to return to their own country as soon as permission was given to them, they were not yet utter despisers of God, and wholly destitute of all religion. It was indeed a significant fault to remain torpid among the Babylonians when a free return was allowed them, for it was an invaluable kindness on God’s part to extend His hand to the wretched exiles, who had wholly despaired of a return.

Since then God was prepared to bring them home, such a favor could not have been neglected without great ingratitude. But it was still the Lord’s will that some sparks of grace should continue in the hearts of some, though their zeal was not as fervid as it ought to have been.

We see the same sloth in many today, who continue in the filth of Popery; and yet they groan there, and the Lord preserves them, so that they do not shake off every concern for religion, nor do they wholly fall away. All then are not to be condemned as unfaithful who are slothful and lack vigor; but they are to be stimulated.

For they who indulge their torpor act very foolishly; but at the same time, they ought to be pitied when there is not in them that desirable alacrity in devoting themselves to God, which they ought to have. Such an instance then we see in the captives, who ought to have immediately prepared themselves for the journey when permission was given to them by the edicts of Cyrus and Darius.

They however remained in exile, but did not completely renounce the worship of God, for they sent sacred offerings by which they professed their faith. They also inquired what they were to do and showed deference to the priests and Prophets then at Jerusalem. From this it appears that they were not satisfied with themselves, though they did not immediately amend what was wrong.

There are many now who, in order to excuse themselves, or rather to wipe away (as they think) all disgrace, despise God’s word and mock us. Indeed, they devise crimes with which they charge us, in order to vilify the word of the Lord in the opinion of the simple.

But the Prophet shows that the captives of whom he speaks, though not as courageous as they ought to have been, were yet true servants of God, for they sent sacrifices to the temple and also wished to hear and to learn what they were to do.

He says first, that messengers were sent to entreat the face of Jehovah. Here, by the word entreating or praying, the Prophet also means sacrifices. For it is certain that the Jews prayed in exile, as there could have been no religion in them if they had not engaged in prayer. But the mention here is of that formal prayer, connected with sacrifices, by which they professed themselves to be God’s people. From this we may also learn that sacrifices in themselves are not of great importance, since prayer, or calling on God, always has the first place. Sacrifices then, and other offerings, were, as we may say, additions (accessoria — accessions); for this command ought always to be regarded by the faithful: Offer to me the sacrifice of praise (Psalms 50:14).

He says, in the second place, that messengers were sent that they might learn from the priests and the Prophets what was doubtful to them. From this we conclude that it was no blatant dissimulation, such as is found in hypocrites who pretend to pray to God, but that there was a real desire to obey.

And, undoubtedly, when God’s word and heavenly truth are despised, there is then no real prayer, nor any other religious exercise; for unbelief pollutes and contaminates whatever is otherwise in its nature sacred. Whoever then desires to pray rightly to God, let him add faith, that is, let him come to God in a teachable frame of mind and seek to be ruled by His word.

For the Prophet, in telling us what was done, undoubtedly keeps to the method or the order observed by the captives. It was then worthy of praise that they not only were anxious to seek God’s favor by prayers and sacrifices, but that they also sought to know what was pleasing to God.

Nor was it surprising that they sent to Jerusalem for this reason, for they knew that place had been chosen by God as the place from which they were to seek the right knowledge of religion. Since then Jerusalem was the sanctuary of God, the captives sent their messengers there, particularly as they knew that the priests were the ambassadors of God, and that the interpretation of the law was to be sought from their lips. They indeed knew that the time had not yet come when the doctrine of salvation was to be disseminated throughout the whole world.

But the Prophet says that the captives not only inquired of the priests, but also of the Prophets. From this it appears that it was commonly known that God had raised up Prophets, something He had ceased to do for a long time. For it was not without reason that Isaiah said that God would still speak by His Prophets when He would again comfort His people (Isaiah 40:1). There had been then a mournful silence for seventy years, when no Prophets were sent forth, according to what is said in the book of Psalms: Our signs we see not, nor is there a Prophet among us (Psalms 74:9).

God indeed had been accustomed to lead the people as by an erected banner when they lived in the holy land, and Prophets continually succeeded one another in regular order, according to what the Lord had promised by Moses: A Prophet will I raise up in the midst of you, etc. (Deuteronomy 18:15).

From the time, then, when they had been driven into exile, while looking at one another there, they could hear no voice to encourage them with hope, until new Prophets were again raised up unexpectedly.

And it was God’s will that the Prophets should have their abode and habitation at Jerusalem, so that He might gather the dispersed Israel. For if there had been Prophets in Chaldea, many might therefore find a pretext for their slothfulness, saying, “Does not God dwell in the midst of us? What need is there to undertake a difficult and toilsome journey? We shall indeed find nothing better at Jerusalem than in this exile, for God shows that He is present with us by His Prophets.”

It would have therefore been a great harm to the Jews to have Prophets in their exile.

But when the captives heard that the gift of prophecy appeared again in the temple, they might have recalled what their fathers had heard from Isaiah and also from Micah: From Zion shall go forth a law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:3; Micah 4:3). We now perceive why Zechariah joined Prophets to priests.

But we must bear in mind what we have stated elsewhere: that the prophetic office was, as it were, an extraordinary office, when God took others as the ministers of His word besides the priests. For their work was sacerdotal; but God meant to condemn the priests by transferring the work of teaching to others, that is, when Prophets were taken from the common people, or from other families, and not from the Levitical tribe.

It is not indeed true that all the priests were Prophets; but the office itself would not have been transferred to any other tribe, had not God thus punished the ingratitude of those who spent more effort on their own private concerns than on teaching the people. Be that as it may, it was an illustrious testimony of God’s favor that Prophets at that time had again been raised up.

And this fact has been added—that they lived nowhere else but at Jerusalem, to encourage the dispersed to return and to show them that the place had not been chosen in vain previously by God. This is the reason why the Prophet expressly says that the Prophets, as well as the priests, were in the house or in the temple of the Lord of hosts.

The time is also mentioned: the fourth year of Darius, and the ninth month and the fourth day. The beginning of the year, we know, was in March; therefore, the month Chisleu was November, or a part of October and November, for they customarily began their months at the new moons.

Of King Darius we have spoken elsewhere. He was not, indeed, the first Darius, the father-in-law of Cyrus, who transferred the monarchy to the Persians, but Darius the son of Hystaspes. The seventy years had then passed, for, as has been stated before, this was the fourth king.

Let us now consider the question which the captives proposed to the priests. They asked whether they were to weep in the fifth month, and whether they were to separate themselves as they had done for seventy years and more; for some years, as we have seen, had passed beyond that number.

From this we learn that a regular fast was observed from the time when the temple was burned and the city destroyed. He speaks here only of the fifth month, but shortly after, mention is made of the seventh month. It is evident from sacred history that the city was demolished and the temple pulled down in the fifth month.

It is therefore probable that there was a day of mourning observed by the people in memory of that sad event. In the seventh month, though not in the same year, Gedaliah was slain, and the remainder of the people were driven into exile. As the land then became desolate, it is also probable that another fast was appointed, so that they might yearly humble themselves before God and humbly seek His pardon.

Since then there was a reason for both fasts, it is evident that they could not have been condemned by the priests; nor is there any doubt that it was by the public consent of all that they kept these days of weeping every year.

We also see the purpose God has in view in prescribing a fast—that people, in coming to Him, may feel true penitence and remind themselves by their external appearance of their own guilt. Since the Jews observed this rule in their fasts, we must conclude that they pleased God, for these were religious exercises by which they might have been led to repentance.

Now they inquired whether they were to continue their weeping, for the temple and the city had now begun to be built. Since the reason for their mourning had been that the temple no longer stood where they might offer their sacrifices, and that the holy city had been demolished, it was then undoubtedly right to give thanks to God and to feel joy when their calamities came to an end.

However, the captives did not venture to change anything without the authority and consent of the priests, so that they might all agree together. And thus they also testified that they were true members of the Church, as they had no desire to have anything different from others.

The word 'fast' is not mentioned; but they asked, “Shall we weep?” From this it also appears that they were not so crude in their ideas as to think that the chief part of religion is fasting, as hypocrites do, who imagine that they honor God by abstaining from food, and thus mock God, who is a Spirit, with mere trifles, when it is His express will to be spiritually worshipped.

We then clearly see that the Jews were not imbued with this crude and foolish thought when they established this annual fast, for they put weeping in the place of fasting. And why was this weeping, except that they went into God’s presence conscious of their guilt and in a humble manner, and testified by external signs that they acknowledged their sins, so that they might obtain mercy and forgiveness?

They also mentioned consecration. The word נזר, nezar, which means to separate, is variously explained. But here many interpreters confine it to abstinence from food, as if they had said, “Shall we separate ourselves from food?”

This seems forced to me. I therefore prefer to apply it to sanctification, for we know that when a day was prescribed for fasting or for offering sacrifices, sanctification was added.

For though it was fitting for the Jews throughout their whole life to abstain from all defilements, yet we know that when a fast or any particular sacrifice was appointed, they were more diligent and solicitous to cast aside every pollution. We now understand then what the Jews had in view and what they meant by these words.