Chapter Seven

1–3. The question of whether to continue observing the fasts established in memory of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. 4–7. The fasts established apart from God’s commandment have no relation to God. 8–14. The ancestors of the generation contemporary with the prophet were punished by the devastation of the land and dispersion for not observing the moral commandments.

Zechariah 7:1. In the fourth year of King Darius, the word of the Lord came to Zechariah, on the fourth day of the ninth month, which is Chislev, Zechariah 7:2. when Bethel had sent Sharezer and Regem-melech and his men to ask for the favor of the Lord, Zechariah 7:3. and to ask the priests of the house of the Lord of hosts and the prophets, saying: “Should I continue to mourn in the fifth month and fast, as I have for these many years? In memory of the sorrowful events that led Israel to final defeat and dispersion, fasts were established, which were observed both during the captivity and after its end. There were four such fasts: 1) the fast of the tenth month—in memory of the day (the tenth day of the tenth month) when the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar began (2 Sam 25:1), 2) the fast of the fourth month, on the ninth day of which the destruction of the walls of Jerusalem began (Jer 52:5-7), 3) the burning of the temple and city and the final destruction of the walls on the seventh day of the fifth month (2 Sam 25 and following) led to the establishment of a special, most important among the others, fast, and 4) finally, a fast was established in memory of the murder of Gedaliah in the seventh month (2 Sam 25:25). But in the fourth year of Darius’s reign, the temple construction had advanced so far and affairs were taking such a favorable turn that some began to be troubled by the thought of whether it was opportune to observe the fast of the fifth month (in memory of the destruction of the temple) now, when the traces of destruction had been erased and the reason for fasting and mourning was, consequently, removed. Was it not time to abolish the fast? It is difficult to determine from whom exactly the question about the abolition of fasts proceeded. “Bethel” (Zech 7:2), which seems to designate the community or person sending envoys before the Lord, is interpreted by scholars in various ways: some understand this designation in the sense of “house of God,” that is, the community of the faithful (without a more precise definition); others understand the city of Bethel, to which part of the Babylonian captives returned. These captives, who had settled in their native city, send an embassy (the envoys, evidently, were born in Babylon and therefore bore Chaldean names) to Jerusalem to pray before the Lord and to propose to the priests and prophets the question of the timeliness of ceasing the fast in the fifth month observed for many years.

Zechariah 7:4. And the word of the Lord of hosts came to me: Since the priests, to whom the delegation turned for a resolution of the question about the fasts, apparently had difficulty giving an answer from themselves, the prophet Zechariah answers in the name of God. The people do not need comfort only and approval: it is also inclined now to give itself to negligence in regard to its moral condition: it should be urgently reminded both of its sinfulness and of the necessity of spiritual vigilance over itself. The question placed in Zech 7:3 gives the prophet a good opportunity to first address the people with reproaches and warnings, and then with promises and words of approval. The prophet’s answer to the question about the observance of fasts can be divided into four parts; an introductory formula, almost the same in all cases, serves as the external marker for separating one part from another: the word came (Zech 7:4).

Zechariah 7:5. “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests: When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months for these seventy years, was it really for me that you fasted? For me? Zechariah 7:6. And when you ate and drank, did you not eat and drink for yourselves, for yourselves? From the prophet’s answering speech, having received revelation from God, it is clear that the questioners attributed excessive importance to the fasts established apart from God’s commandment, ascribed moral value to this purely ceremonial institution. The prophet, by God’s word, instructs not only the common people but also the priests, who apparently were also inclined to confuse the observance of rituals with the fulfillment of moral commandments. The priests established fasts, and the people observed them throughout the long period of captivity; but did this have any moral value in itself? God did not require the establishment of these fasts, and they have, consequently, no relation to Him. Man eats and drinks to sustain his life; self-restraint in itself does not necessarily lead to moral perfection. Fasts, if given undue importance, can distract a person’s attention from the observance of the commandments and ordinances given by God through the former prophets at the time when Jerusalem and its environs and the whole land still enjoyed peace and prosperity. Peace has been broken, prosperity has disappeared: it is clear that the commandments given by God were not observed, and inattention to them brought God’s wrath upon the whole land. Neither now should one forget the commandments altogether or equate them with ordinances not based on God’s will.