It is better to be a failure in a cause that will ultimately succeed than to be a success in a cause that will ultimately fail.
Ezra and Nehemiah were two of the main
leaders leading the exiles back to Jerusalem in 458 BC to rebuild the temple and city
walls. It is interesting to note that these two leaders were able to cooperate so
well despite having entirely different temperaments, as evidenced by their
different reactions to the problem of mixed marriages: Ezra plucks out his own
hair while Nehemiah plucks out other people's hair!
Issues faced by the returned
exiles:
In Ezra 1 we see that there was
providential intervention of God on behalf of his people so that the heart of a pagan ruler Cyrus was able to
fulfil God’s will in letting the exiles return to Judah to rebuild the
temple, bringing money and possessions with them.
In Ezra 2 we see that the returnees are
listed by families and places leading to the view that the purpose was to
identify legitimate Israelites and to restore land rights for those
dispossessed by the Babylonians. The special mentions of the priests, Levites
and temple servants reflect a primary concern upon their return: the re-establishment of temple worship.
In Ezra 3 the first activity recorded
is the restoration of sacrifices and the celebration of the Tabernacles. Then
the next project was rebuilding of the
Temple. Through these activities, we see that the service of God require a
united effort (v1), leadership (v2a), obedience to God’s word (v2b), courage in
the face of opposition (v3), offering and funds (v4-7), and an organised
division of labour (v8-9).
Ezra 4
is where one of the biggest issues came up: The inhabitants of the former Northern Kingdom brought in by the
Assyrian kings after the fall of Samaria offered to help with the temple
construction, but these people were almost certainly syncretistic (2 Kings 17:41) and did not share the exiles’ basic
theological convictions. The returned exiles rejected, and it is likely more
because they do not want to be brought into syncretism rather than unjustified
racism. So opposition to the temple
arose immediately from these “people around them”. These people discourage and
intimidate (v4), bribed officials to work against them (v5), as well as lodging
false accuses to Persian authorities (v6, 13). The work came to a standstill for almost twenty years as a
result (v24).
Then we see from Ezra 5 that God raised up the prophets Haggai and Zechariah in the
second year of Darius to encourage the people to recommence the temple building (v1-2). On watch for rebellion, Tattenai, the Persian appointed
governor of this region, questioned the building. He nonetheless allowed the
building to continue (v3-5). His letter to Darius asked for verification that
Cyrus had authorised the project and for Darius’ decision. And we see in Ezra 6
that Cyrus’ decree was located
(v1-5) and Darius allowed the building to proceed. The Jews were even given
financial aid (v8-10) and any who disobeyed his decree were to be put to death
(v11-12).
Role of the Law (Torah) in the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah:
Ezra’s genealogy (7:1-5) establishes
him as a direct descendant of Aaron
and therefore with the right to act as priest
and to introduce certain reforms. Ezra is described as a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses (v. 6; cf. v 10). There seems to
be a change in the structure of Israel’s religious life as the teaching
function of the priests is now shared by this new group that emerged in
Babylon, the scribes.
Ezra did not come as a civil governor
as had Sheshbazzar or Zerubbabel (or Nehemiah later). His task is defined in
7:14, 25-26: to discover to what extent
Jewish law is being observed in Judea. The legal role he is to play is
connected to the law of God and to the law of the king. This link
between divine and imperial law has prompted research on the role of the
Persian Empire in establishing a legal
foundation for the Jewish community. Ezra had power to compel obedience on
all who classed themselves as Jews in the Trans-Euphrates area. In practice,
Ezra restricted his activities to Judah.
Ezra was disturbed by the absence of Levites and priests to serve
in the temple (8:15) and gathers more before he returns. On arrival (9:1-2), he
discovered that Jewish men had been marrying
non-Jewish women. He tore his garments in despair (9:3) and confessed the sins of Israel before
God, then braved the opposition of some of his own countrymen to purify the
community by enforcing the dissolution
of the sinful marriages (10:2-5, 14). Ezra is cast as a passive character who did not directly
attack the people, but prays in
their presence a prayer that echoes the style of a prophetic covenant lawsuit. Ezra’s
public reading of the law (Neh
8:1-12) marked the climax of his ministry. This prayer is contagious among the
people, leading them to similar rites. He calls for a tribunal to which the people are to come voluntarily and resolve
their disobedience.
Note also that marriage with foreigners was not absolutely forbidden in the OT, as
exemplified by Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Boaz & Ruth. Marriage to the
inhabitants of Canaan was strongly forbidden in Exodus and Deuteronomy, for reasons of faith, as the foreign wife
will influence her husband and children’s faith. The breaking up of families
was a horrible event, but of a lesser evil than breaking God’s law. Ezra and
the community of God’s people had to apply the teaching of the Torah to their
own circumstance, no matter how difficult or costly.
Nehemiah’s ministry: a success or
a failure?
A superficial reading of the book of
Nehemiah will indicate that it is a book about building - about building the walls of the city of Jerusalem. But
what is the significance of this person? There are some very positive aspects
to Nehemiah’s character:
·
Being appointed the trusted role of a cupbearer for the king (a person
entrusted with the responsibility to serve the king wine, ensuring that he
would not be assassinated with poisoned drinks), which is a very prestigious position, is evidence that
Nehemiah was capable of winning the
trust of his superiors.
·
He was also a man of vision, to rebuild the walls of
Jerusalem.
·
He was also a man of prayer: his first report was to prayer
(1:4-11) and he prayed spontaneously even in the presence of the king (2:4-5).
·
In being able to inspire action in others (2:18), he was spiritually sensitive, a man of cooperation and organisation.
·
In meeting opposition squarely (chapter 4-6), he was a courageous leader.
·
He was also a man of compassion, renouncing his own
privileges (5:18) and denounced the wealthy who had exploited their poorer
compatriots (5:8).
·
Most importantly, Nehemiah was a man of
right motivation. The last words of
Nehemiah, “Remember me with favour, O my God” (13:31), served as evidence that
his motive throughout his career was to please and serve God.
The Persian king sent him on an
official mission with permission to rebuild the walls. His principal
achievements were rebuilding the wall
of Jerusalem, building a governor’s
residence and administrative
infrastructure and repopulating
the city of Jerusalem. He administered Torah
and sought to rectify social wrongs.
The next chapters (7-12) focus on the “building”
of the people behind the walls. The law of God came into focus with Ezra’s
public reading of the law (8:1-12). Priority was given to prohibiting mixed marriages (9:30). Other reforms
included observing the Sabbath
(10:31), maintenance of the temple,
and to forgiving debts in the
seventh year. There was national
repentance followed by a renewal of
the covenant, complete with signatories (chapter 9).
Unfortunately, chapter 13 represents an
anti-climax, indicating that Nehemiah’s short
departure for the Persian capital after
twelve years of leadership in Jerusalem resulted in a collapse of the walls once again - only this time they were spiritual walls. It is far easier to
build physical walls than spiritual ones. Unfortunately, we learn that physical
walls alone cannot withstand the contaminating forces on the outside and, on this
note, the book ends. But probably one of the other lessons is that Nehemiah
will need more than his presence and the
law of God to stem the tide of contaminating forces, for they originate within hearts inside the
walls as well those outside. The building of the walls of the city, and the
building of the wall of the law are insufficient to change the human heart. Nevertheless,
Nehemiah persists in the work of building, reforming, and praying to the end.
While the “failures” of reformers
Nehemiah and Ezra show the need for a continuation of the story, Nehemiah’s
modest efforts are signs of hope for the walls of salvation to come. One thinks
of the saying that it is better to be a
failure in a cause that will ultimately succeed than to be a success in a cause
that will ultimately fail.
References:
Dempster, S.
G., “The Place of Nehemiah in the Canon of Scripture: Wise Builder”, Southern
Baptist Journal of Theology 9 (2005), 38-50.
Yamauchi, E. M., “Ezra and Nehemiah,
Books of”, in B. T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), Dictionary of the
Old Testament: Historical Books (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005), 284-95.
Chronicles and eschatological hope: the one who will make lasting reforms
Comparison of the account in
Samuel-Kings and Chronicles certainly shows a different perspective on that history. The Chronicler does not report incidences that would
tarnish the kings. “All Israel” acting
together in concert is a prominent theme in Chronicles. But rather than demeaning
Chronicles as a source of history, it’s better to recognise it as a highly interpretive presentation of the
events of the past: another word, two
different but ‘accurate’ portraits of the same person. The Chronicler lives
at a time later than the writer of Kings, so the needs of his audience are different. The restoration community is
not asking “How could this have happened?” Rather it is asking “Are we still the people of God?”
The book is divided into three large sections: genealogies,
united monarchy under David and Solomon, and post-schism kingdom.
The genealogies directly address the question of the continuity of the restoration community
with Israel of old. The term “all
Israel” suggests that the Chronicler regards schism as neither permanent nor desirable, and he is possibly
giving some expression to an eschatological
hope for a revival of the nation in its largest extent. Furthermore, there
is the tracing of the Davidic line
well into the post-exilic period (1 Chr 3:17-24), which suggests that the
Chronicler continued to see the house of David holding the key to Yahweh’s future purposes.
Compared to the books of Kings, David’s faults have been greatly reduced.
For instance, David’s adultery and Absalom’s revolt are omitted. It is
important to understand the different contexts of Kings and Chronicles. David
was being idealised in to the ‘type’ of
Davidic king of prophetic expectation.
Kings was written in the exilic period
to account for the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the nation. The
clear message of Kings is that the reason for this destruction and exile
was the judgment of God for the
continued rebellion of the people
and their kings. The retelling of this history in Chronicles is for a different
purpose. There was no need to recite the sins again, for the people were
only too aware of the consequences. What the people in that period needed to
hear was the basis for any hope for the
future. The Chronicler looks to engender hope for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty. It may be asked
why this hope is not more explicit in Chronicles? The simple answer is that the
Chronicler is writing history and not
prophecy. The Chronicler’s work is to be understood as part of a wider
stream of prophetic literature, which as we have seen raised the expectation of
a future Davidic king. It was the prophets, who, staring in the face of the
historical reality of the failure of the house of David, saw in the promise to
David of an eternal dynasty the hope of a Davidic king to come.
Chronicler portrays David and Solomon in priestly roles: David wears the same
outfit as the Levites in 1 Chronicles 15:27, and blesses the people in the name
of Yahweh. David and Solomon offer sacrifices (1 Chr 16:2; 21:26, 28; 2 Chr
8:12). Again, this parallels the
portrait of the future Davidic king in Zechariah who as a priest provides purification for sin.
Chronicles focuses on the Davidic
dynasty to the exclusion of the northern
kings. This concern with the southern kingdom and the house of David also suggests that the Chronicler saw it as holding the key to the future. The
Chronicler seems to use the life of Manasseh to parallel the experience of the
people of Judah. If they will only humble themselves and repent, the reign of a
Davidic king shall once again be established in Jerusalem beyond the judgment
of exile. Hence, the presentation of Manasseh seems to hold out hope for the
restoration of the Davidic dynasty.
In consistently highlighting the
promise to David of an eternal dynasty
when there was no king on the throne,
the Chronicler expresses the hope for a
future Davidic king. The Chronicler offers a highlight reel of David,
Solomon, and Judah in order to paint a picture of the future kingdom. It is
perhaps for this very reason that the book
concludes with the decree of Cyrus. If in fact Dan 9:25 identifies the
decree of Cyrus as the beginning of the countdown to the Messiah.
Also note that the Jewish canon concludes with Chronicles rather than Ezra-Nehemiah, reversing
the natural chronological order. The Chronicler
highlights the coming of the one that is needed who is greater than Ezra and Nehemiah, who will be able to make lasting reforms - David’s greater son.
