Is there a way out of sin and guilt? (Zechariah 3)
Zech 3:1-10
A common misconception Christians have is that the Old Testament people of God believed in animal sacrifices as the general panacea to the problem of sin. A close study of Leviticus 1-7 on the sacrificial system, however, should lead readers to a surprising conclusion. The sin and guilt offerings listed deal with unintentional sins or those committed in ignorance, i.e. the person was not aware for instance that they had touched something unclean, or they forgot and did not immediately remedy the situation (e.g. Lev 4:1, 13; 5:17). The worst sins mentioned are false oath leading to defrauding someone, where restitution is required (Lev 6:1-5). However, none of these sacrifices mention the even graver transgressions of idolatry, murder, adultery or the like. Israel well understood that for such defiant (literally high-handed) sins there was no sacrifice; nothing less than the death of the sinner would suffice (Num 15:30-31).[1] Thus, Jews after the exile were aware that the communal sin of all (for their unfaithfulness to God and idolatry especially) still rested on them. Their repentance was important for renewal, but it did not, in itself, cleanse or remove the guilt. They could only hope for God’s undeserved grace, but they could not assume it as if it were their right as repentant sinners.[2]
Joshua’s sin
Given this background, the vision presents us with a difficult problem. The postexilic generation still carries the guilt for the exile, as well as for their more recent mixed-up priorities of putting their personal prosperity before God’s will (cf. Hag 1:4). Joshua as high priest stands here, ‘on trial’ as it were, not only for anything he himself has done but as representative of a sinful people. However, his own complicity in the sin of the community means that he is as guilty as the rest and how can he mediate and intercede on the people’s behalf? The imagery of filthy garments on the high priest (Zech 3:3; the Hebrew root goes back to the meaning of ‘excrement’; Deut 23:13, Heb. v.14) underlines the severity of the problem as the priests’ approach to God required wearing clean linen garments and performing various ritual washings beforehand. How could anyone appear before the holy King of the Universe soiled with excrement, as it were?
God’s grace wins out
While justice requires a reckoning, ‘the accuser’ (Zech 3:1-2; the literal translation of ha-satan)[3] is rebuked because God’s nature is mercy. Joshua and the exiles he represents are like firebrands plucked from the judgment of exile (cf. Amos 4:11). Would the Lord have saved them from exile only to leave them languishing in sin? Surely not! The replacement of the filthy clothes with clean garments symbolises the removal of sin (Zech 3:4) and is a kind of re-commissioning of the high priest (cf. Exod 28:4-6) along with a call for faithful service (Zech 3:6-7). In this process of renewal after sin, Joshua and his fellow-priests are signs for what God is going to do in restoring the Davidic king (Branch is a Messianic title; Jer 23:5) and the rest of the land (i.e. the people) by dealing with their sin in one day (Zech 3:8-9). The mysterious stone with its seven ‘eyes’ or facets and its inscription (v.9; perhaps saying that God will remove the people’s iniquity) is a reminder of His promise.
Thankfulness and hope
In any age, the message of this passage is staggering. Who can fathom the incredible love of God? As Christians, we can have an even deeper appreciation for what the Lord has done because we know the terrible cost He Himself bore in Jesus Christ to remove sin in a single day! Indeed, the exiles could not have imagined that ‘Branch’, a humble shoot from the felled stump of the Davidic royal line, will not only come to rule as King over His people but be the very one who dealt with sin by dying our death. While we see a level of fulfilment in this vision, once again there is a future aspect of final renewal and reconciliation expressed here in the picture of peace and well-being depicted in Zechariah 3:10. May our lives be filled with thankfulness for what we have already received and with hope for a future that we cannot even imagine.
[1] In Psalm 51, which is associated with the context of David’s adultery and murder, the psalmist cries out for God’s mercy in the face of ‘bloodguilt’ (i.e. murder; Ps 51:14) and states that sacrifice is of no use in this case, otherwise he would give it (Ps 51:16). David could only throw himself at God’s mercy and is forgiven without sacrifice (2 Sam 12:13). We should not assume from this that atoning sacrifices were not important – they were. They reminded Israel of the utter seriousness of sin, the need for restitution and for the effect of sin on the relationship with God expressed in the way the temple was seen to be polluted by sin. Unless the place was regularly cleansed from such pollution, God would remove His presence from the temple. The sacrificial system then made the relationship with God possible and, in its various aspects, pointed forward to Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice of Himself that did deal with even the gravest of sins.
[2] This is why many of the prophets express this connection between repentance and God’s response of mercy as a possibility rather than a certainty (e.g. Jonah 3:8-9; Joel 2:13-14).
[3] The definite article ‘the satan/accuser/adversary’ indicates that this is not a personal name for the Devil, but a function. The image is of a court case where there is a prosecuting attorney bringing charges against the guilty party. The same word with the definite article (‘the satan’) is used in Job 1:6-12. For the most part, Israel believed that sin was the result of people’s evil inclination (Gen 4:7), though there are hints of a personal evil in the OT (e.g. the serpent in Genesis 3) and by Jesus’ time, Satan as a person was more clearly recognised.
If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.