Nehemiah, Jeremiah…and Bears! Oh, my!

In this concluding post on the book of Nehemiah, I want to try and accomplish three things.  First, I would like to drag some of the prophesies of Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel into the discussion, particularly Ezekiel and Jeremiah, in order to establish that the second temple truly was a prophetic event realized in redemptive history.  Second, I want to complete the discussion of covenants in terms of Nehemiah, his actions and his results.  Third, I want to put the Second Temple back into its place in redemptive historical context.

The book of Isaiah is far too long to tackle in one post, but a brief overview is worth the time here.  Isaiah is roughly divided into three sections based upon time.  Because Isaiah is thought to have lived in the earlier time period, the second two sections are viewed as being prophetic.  The middle section, chapters 40-55 assume a Jewish audience in Babylonian exile.  The last section, chapters 56-66 assume a Second Temple Jewish audience and speak to time eternal.  In the middle section, after foretelling the Diaspora, Isaiah tells Israel that they will need to return to Jerusalem.  The details have more to do with the politics of the situation and less to do with the actual temple and city, but there is plenty of prophesy and covenant conversation for the reading.  I posted on chapter 59 just this weekend.  For our purposes today, let us move on to Ezekiel and Jeremiah.

Ezekiel and Jeremiah were personally part of the exile.  They witnessed the fall of Jerusalem.  Their prophesies are therefore full both of lament for the covenant curses that have befallen an unfaithful Israel as well as our indication that God did indeed intend to restore Israel to Jerusalem for a time in the Second Temple era.  In fact, some people hold that Lamentations was a further work of Jeremiah.  In it, the people of Israel hold out hope that despite their deservedly received Wrath, they will yet receive the Mercy of God.  Jeremiah and Ezekiel are more specific.

In Bible study, we have already seen how Ezekiel foretold the fall of the first Temple in chapter 8, and gave us the reason for it.  Israel has persisted in horrible sin in the House of God, in His Temple, and in verse 18, for this they will receive His Wrath.  Through the middle chapters, we get the fall and the exile.  Finally, starting in chapter 40, Ezekiel tells of his vision of the Second Temple.  I would draw some attention, besides to the obvious overlap with Ezra, to the details of language concerning the prince and the son of man in chapter 44.  There is talk of separation.  There is discussion of circumcision by heart and flesh.  These are the key points of Ezekiel, and we see the echoes of this vision in the actions of Nehemiah.  It is no wonder that Nehemiah goes bananas in chapter 13 when he finds that Israel is already committing the same abominations in the Second Temple that caused their downfall in the First Temple.

As we go back through Nehemiah chapter 9 and 10, notice the correlation between those and Ezekiel 43.  There is clear instruction and obedience demonstrated here between Ezekiel and Ezra a century or more later.  Further, the admonishments by God to Ezekiel in chapter 44 are echoed by Nehemiah.  The correlation is not accidental.  We will come back at the end to these important issues.

Jeremiah lived through the same events.  He and his scribe Baruch record much of the historical events in much the same manner as other books.  But let’s find some of the true high points of his book.  Let us focus for a moment on Jeremiah17:1-13.  As you read this, compare this with two sections of the NT.  First, notice the blessings and curses language that is similar to the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5.  Notice also, that Jeremiah comes down hard on the sin of man.  Look at verses 9-10.  This is bad news, folks.  Yes, God sees inside our hearts, and what he sees is desperately sick and deceitful.  Compare this with Paul in Romans 3:9-12.  Paul didn’t make that stuff up.  Here is but one place where the heart is described harshly.

Jeremiah 25 is a sobering account of God’s Wrath.  There are a couple of items to point out here.  First, when we are saved, we are saved from God’s Wrath.  Nowhere is this more clearly recorded.  Secondly, the Wrath of God will be delivered to all nations.  Jeremiah doesn’t just deliver the Wrath of God to Jerusalem, he goes everywhere.  We tend to view the Old Testament story in terms of Israel alone.  Remember that Israel are a type and shadow of the true Israel, those who believe in the promise, those who include the wild vines grafted into the family tree of Abraham.  Jeremiah, and later God, will give this cup of Wrath to all nations. 

Jeremiah 29 is a passage that gets abused and taken out of context.  Much of the Old Testament suffers the same treatment in this present evil age.  But this particular assault is fresh on my mind.  Looking at verses 10-23, we find a prophesy for the return to Jerusalem for the exiled.  Early in Bible study, I made a statement concerning the covenant relationship of God with the Second Temple.  I asked the question, where is the God side of the Covenant?  God speaks through His prophets as well as through fire.  This is not a new covenant; this is a renewal of the old Sinai covenant.  It reads like Law, just as Sinai reads as Law.  Here is God granting the return of the exiled to Jerusalem.  But, importantly, there remain the blessings and the curses.  This is still a “do this and you shall live, do it not and you shall perish” type of Law Covenant.  But in this, we can see the reason that Nehemiah and Ezra looked to Moses rather than to Abraham.

Is it surprising, then, that we find statements such as Nehemiah 13:30-31?  Nehemiah is operating in terms of the blessings and curses principle of the Law.  Remember me for my good deeds.  Can we say then that Nehemiah is a Patriarch about whom we should view as righteous based upon his belief in the promise?  I am not the Fruit Inspector General, but it would seem that Nehemiah condemns himself with those words.  God will use believer and unbeliever alike towards His purpose.  Is belief in God enough for salvation?  Jesus says a resounding “no” to this question.  Even the devil believes in God.  Nehemiah clearly demonstrates his belief in the prophesies concerning the return to Jerusalem, but did he believe also in the promise, as did Abraham? 

For extra credit, try Romans 4 for a moment as Paul explains the covenant meaning of circumcision.  Going back to the notion of circumcision of the heart and of the flesh from Ezekiel 44, we can say that Paul spiritualizes circumcision of the flesh to mean that full and complete cutting off of Jesus.  Through our Baptism, we become covenant members of this circumcision through the Blood of Christ, the Grace of which we have renewed in us through Holy Communion.  The circumcision of the heart is the gift of faith, by the Holy Spirit, that transforms our hearts, making us new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5), through the meritorious work of Jesus on the Cross.  All that we hold to be true in the New Covenant was first foretold in the Old Testament.  All of the types and shadows of the OT have meaning, and come to fruition in the New Covenant in Christ.

Through all of this prophesy, from Isaiah and Ezekiel and Jeremiah, Israel remains laser pointed at the Law, completely overlooking other aspects of the prophesy.  Jeremiah 23:3-5 concerns the righteous branch of David.  Read it now.  There was a purpose beyond the restoration of ethnic Israel to a land and renewal of old long broken covenants to the Second Temple.  That purpose was the introduction of the root of Jesse, the righteous branch of David, the Prophet, Priest and King, the Messiah, the Son of Man, our Savior, our Only Mediator and Advocate, the Paraclete.  All of these phrases appear or are described first in the Old Testament concerning the One who will come.  This is the purpose of rebuilding the Temple.  God will enter into the world from the Eastern door of the Sanctuary of the Temple (Ezekiel 44).  And thus Jesus was born to the East of Jerusalem, in the city of David.

Nehemiah fulfilled his purpose unto God.  Israel was restored to the land for a time, and the Second Temple and the wall was built.  But in the book of Nehemiah, I see that man is not changed.  Man is still fallen.  Man still needs a Savior.  Man needs a New Covenant where God does all the work for us.

--Troll--

Prelude to Nehemiah 8-10

As we move into this pivotal section of Nehemiah, I thought that maybe 20,000 feet was too low a perspective.  Let’s try 30,000 feet.  Last week, there was a comment about the Old Testament being boring and not particularly useful.  As Protestants, we have received poor instruction from the liberal establishment on the Gospel.  Therefore, the instruction of the Old Testament can only be worse.

Here is a radical statement that I heard last year that changed my view of the Old Testament.  The whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is about Jesus.  Perhaps, more accurately, the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is about God’s redemption of His creation through the work of Jesus on the Cross.  While on the one hand, being told that the Bible is about Jesus seems redundant, on the other hand, I am also saying that every verse in the whole Bible is within the context of the redemptive plan of God through Jesus.  This becomes very important in how we interpret passages.

First, I’ve made a claim that bears some scrutiny.  In the realm of modern evangelicalism and protestant liberalism, the predominant view of the Old Testament is within the context of a dispensational system of eschatology.  Eschatology is the study of the redemptive history of God through mankind.  It is not just an end times discussion.  What point is there to discussing end times without some idea of how we got to that chapter of redemptive history?  In the dispensational systems, redemptive history is sort of divided into periods defined by key Biblical events.  In the most common dispensational framework, there are seven dispensations, and we are living in the sixth currently, but the number ranges from about 4 to 8.  The point is that salvation has different rules in each dispensation.

How can this be?  I do not intend to defend a position that is contrary to my own, but by way of explanation, consider this.  Between Moses and Jesus, the Jews had the Law, the full Levitical Law.  Therefore, for a Jew living in that age or dispensation, their salvation was based upon adherence to that law.  I can start in Matthew and destroy this manner of thinking by the time we get to Galatians, but what is amazing is that the Old Testament has already done this.

On the Road to Emmaus, Jesus instructs a couple of his disciples on scripture.  Later, in Jerusalem, he does more of the same.  The evidence that we have of the teaching that was given is seen in the sermons recorded by Luke in the Book of Acts.  All of the Apostles ground the historical events of the resurrection in the Old Testament scripture.  In addition, we see these sermons using all sections of the Old Testament as pointing to Jesus.  Therefore, we can infer with a high level of confidence that Jesus thought that the whole Old Testament was about Him.

When reading a particular passage in the Old Testament, the questions are these.  What is the context of that passage within the whole redemptive historical context?  What is the specific office of Jesus’ ministry that bears on that passage: prophet, priest or king?  Is the passage in question focused more upon Law or Gospel?  The corollaries of this type of thinking are boundless.

Second, one of the more difficult aspects of reading the Old Testament is its organization.  The Old Testament is more or less organized into the groupings of historical narratives, poetry and prophecy.  The original organization of the Hebrew books was somewhat different, and the idea of historical narrative was somewhat redundant with prophecy.  The Hebrew notion is that the role of the historian is to point out the failings of Israel in respect to their covenantal relationship with God, which is in no small part a prophetic office.  The result of all of this grouping and regrouping is that the chronological thread of the narrative can get very twisted.

Adding to this problem is that some of this internal chronological meandering can occur within a single book.  Jeremiah is a great example in which he witnesses the fall of the Temple in chapter 40, but continues on with pre-destruction narrative in later chapters.  We have encountered this in Ezra and Nehemiah to some degree as there is some overlap of the chapters between the books and even between chapters in Nehemiah.

Therefore, flying at altitude has many advantages in reading the Old Testament.  The primary advantage is that Jesus seems to have suggested this strategy to the Apostles, and then the Apostles delivered Old Testament scripture in their sermons in the book of Acts in this fashion.  It assists us in making sense of the jumbled timeline that results from the structural organization of the Old Testament.  It keeps us focused on why we are Christians.  Redemption is the solution to the problem of the fall.  Jesus provides all of the parts of our redemption to his remnant elect.  In the Old Testament, we learn why he did it, and why it had to happen in the way that it did.  Knowing about the resurrection without understanding the reasons behind it is knowing only half the story.  That manner of scholarship leaves the believer vulnerable to bad teachers, the wolves that mislead His sheep.

In the next post, following up on this model, I hope to compare the prophecy of Jeremiah with the actual recorded work of Ezra and Nehemiah.

--Troll--

Nehemiah 6--Prelude to something big

At the end of Bible study on Nehemiah 6, the question was what will each of us take away from the discussion and the text.  As Nehemiah builds to the great climax in Chapter 9, my thoughts are drawn to the building drama for that climactic summit.  With so much discussion about leadership and the strengthening of our hand in this week's discussion, I find myself retreating back to the high altitude vantage point.

Nehemiah starts with a look to Sinai and he continues to look to Sinai.  In all of this, God remains silent.  Make no mistake, the Wall is built and God's hand is behind it.  But, when Nehemiah and his people make reference to the Temple and to Sinai, God remains silent.  As we plow through another section of the Jerusalem phone book next week, the parallels to Revelation continue to mount.  We will get chapter and verse on the people who were there.  We know how long it took to finish.  We know who worked on which section of the wall.  We know about obstacles and opponents.  We know details and more details.  God is rebuilding the Temple, but the question is whether he is rebuilding the Sinai covenant.  Give Revelation 21 a look once again, and focus at the end on verse 22: And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.  Remember that this Temple, the second temple, and this Jerusalem, the earthly Jerusalem, are mere types and shadows of something much larger.  Something totally different is looming in the historical narrative.  Redemptive history is winding towards something much larger than the walls of man.

As we move into the key passages in Chapters 8 and 9, be watching for the covenant language.  Remember about the animal pieces and sprinkling of blood that accompanied the Sinai covenant and notably also the Abrahamic covenant.  The Old Testament is all about types and shadows.  But Jerusalem is becoming a type and shadow of the type and shadow.  Looking forward to the present, Judaism today is a farther degree still removed from Temple worship.  Nehemiah is where national Israel begins to wander farther from Abraham.  Keep an eye out for how this can happen.  Only 450 years or so will pass between Nehemiah and Jesus.  How can this God lead effort of Ezra and Nehemiah go so far astray in so little time?

My answer is that the foundation is not solid.  God may indeed want this effort to further demonstrate the futility of our works.  God may indeed want this effort to further demonstrate our need for His Grace.  Nehemiah and Ezra continue to look to Moses and Sinai, to the covenant that was broken by Israel.  All along, they still had the key and overlooked it.  All along, the covenant promise that mattered was with Abraham, and subsequently with David.  Follow the Royal Grants; notice the Suzerainty treaties, but do not place faith in the conditional covenants that require the works of man.

I took away a sense of building to a climax.  The summit is in sight.  From 20,000 feet, you can see the mountain looming just over the horizon.  The mountain is Zion, not Sinai.

--Troll--

A whale of a task for Nehemiah

After another stirring week of lumberjacking, we head back to altitude.  The great opposition to the building of the wall is the topic for Nehemiah 4.  We discussed the importance of the wall, the leadership skills of Nehemiah, the implications of failure both for Israel and Nehemiah, and the reaction of the surrounding countries.  This was a lot of tactical discussion, tree top stuff to be sure.  What is happening in the whole forest?

Curses and Jealousy

I would like to focus on verses 4-5 for a moment.  It is interesting to me that Nehemiah is asking for the sort of divine intervention that Israel received in the initial taking of Jerusalem.  He is asking for curses as if these others were on the wrong side of the Sinai Covenant.  He is asking that these other nations receive the same fate as Israel received for breaking the Sinai Covenant.  But he goes farther than this.  Verse 5 is truly amazing.  Nehemiah is using a different type of imagery here.  This is the language of the sacrifice of atonement.

Nehemiah assumes that God is angry at the interference with the wall building.  We are not given any evidence of this.  The Wrath of God, in Old Testament terms, is usually a bit more stern than merely staying the hand of an enemy.  Notice the language of the first half of verse 5.  Do not cover up their sins from your sight, he says.  The implications are startling.  Nehemiah is dealing with these enemies in the context of the way that Israel deals with God.  He asks of God, do not offer the same covering up of sin that You offer to Israel.  Is Nehemiah suggesting that non-Jews have access to the Covenant relationship at Sinai?

Of course this is ridiculous.  Moses was dealing with not only a people, but a theocracy, a government and a nation.  Israel was the specific nation of the Sinai Covenant.  And yet, let’s look at Jonah for a moment.  While this book is very short, it is also very dense and Jesus Himself refers to the sign of Jonah; therefore, I don’t want to dwell on all that is here.  Let us focus on the topic of an enemy that repents and God shows mercy.  Jonah is obedient and does what God instructs for him to do, and yet when God shows mercy, Jonah is none too pleased.  Jonah wants the curse and God shows mercy.  Nehemiah wants the curse, and yet God merely stays the hand of the enemy.  Jonah, one of the twelve minor prophets, is dated 200 years prior to Nehemiah.  It is very likely that Nehemiah was familiar with the story of Jonah.  He asks God not to overlook the sin of his enemies and deliver upon them curses instead.

At this point in my scholarship, it would be premature to say how many times that the prophets hint that the Redemptive plan of Christ is greater than just genetic, ethnic or political Israel.  It should suffice to say that these two instances are not isolated.  Jeremiah and Isaiah in particular hint at such a broadening of the Redemptive plan and it can be argued that other prophets do as well.  Clearly, both Peter and Paul believe this to be the case as their sermons are always grounded in the Old Testament prophets.  Paul certainly believes that the inclusion of the Gentiles has value in creating jealousy within the ethnic entity of Israel.  This jealousy is revealed in Jonah and now we see it in Nehemiah.

Back at 20,000 feet

Remember that there is a purpose to the rebuilding of Jerusalem.  Israel may believe that it is all about them, but God does not see it this way.  God says that it is all about Him.  Without the example of the Law as played out by the Pharisees, with which foil can Jesus teach about the purposes of the Law?  Without the foil of the Sanhedrin, how can Jesus teach about the difference between Law and Gospel?  Jerusalem is the stage for the great drama.  That stage must be rebuilt, but God’s purpose for that stage is far different than the expectation of Israel.

But then, the Gospel is always unexpected.  The Gospel is external to us.  The Gospel cannot be known by natural man by natural revelation.  The Gospel is special revelation and requires that it be told to us.  The Gospel is News, not experience.  The Gospel is the indicative on which the imperative is based.

We see from Nehemiah and the behavior of his brethren that they are having a crisis of faith.  Nehemiah and Ezra seek to rebuild the old ways.  The people believe that God has forsaken them.  These are a broken people that Nehemiah exhorts to action.  At the end of this, keep in mind what will happen to the Second Temple as well.  God’s purpose is to point back to Jesus and our absolute need for Him.  Perhaps, Nehemiah suspects this, just a little, as he calls upon God not to show mercy on the enemies of Israel.

--Troll--

Another brick in the wall

Roger Waters of Pink Floyd wrote this song in 1977 with an entirely different meaning in mind, but here is the hook line of the chorus:  All we are is just another brick in the wall.  This morning, the approach that was decided upon was this:  We are all bricks in the wall.  I’d like to expound upon this second position.

Adam, before the fall, would have been fine offering a sacrifice of Thanksgiving to God.  Prior to the fall, he was capable of fulfilling the Law, and as such, he was in covenant relationship with the Creator.  After the fall, man had need of a different type of sacrifice.  This sacrifice was one of atonement.  The atonement in the Old Testament sense was a covering up of sin, to make us presentable.  This type of atonement was insufficient in a number of ways.  While it may cover up our sins, it failed to do anything about our condition of sin.  Therefore, when we continued to sin, we required another sacrifice of atonement.  This system, though, had the purpose of teaching us about the importance of sin and the need for atonement.  The second problem with this type of sacrifice is that while it may cover up our sin, it did nothing to reconcile us to God in the relationship to Him that we, in Adam, had so grievously damaged by sin.  Therefore, these sacrifices of atonement in the Old Testament were mere types and shadows of the great atonement to come, one that would fully wash away not only our sins, but also our condition of sin, as well as propitiate or reconcile us to God.

Let’s say just a little more about these sacrifices of atonement.  In these ceremonies, there were actually two goats.  Notice Leviticus 16 which describes the ceremony on the Day of Atonement.  The first goat was pure and innocent.  This goat was sacrificed for the atonement of sin for all of Israel, to appease the anger of God.  His pure blood was sprinkled upon the altar.  Then the priest would take the second goat and confess the sin of all of Israel upon that goat.  The sin would be transferred or imputed to the goat.  That second goat, or escape goat, would be set free into the wilderness, banished to certain death.  Now, there are issues of mistranslation both from Hebrew to the Septuagint as well as further into the Vulgate, but the story of the two goats remains.  Perhaps a scholar versed in Hebrew can expound on this for us.  But again, this ceremony is merely a type and shadow of the ultimate sacrifice in which Christ will represent both goats in one, both fully God and fully human.  While theories of the atonement are not my intention in this post, these types and shadows we see in this part of the Old Testament should be pointed out for their value in the overarching tale of redemptive history presented in the whole Bible.

Coming forward to today’s conversation about the Temple, what is important is to understand that Jesus broke the Temple on the third day.  What is important to realize is that Jesus became the Temple.  He is the Temple and the sacrifice.  What is more, He is also the Great High Priest.  This is the Work of Jesus in His office of Priest.  We have spoken before about the three offices of Jesus: Prophet, Priest and King.  Here, we see the fulfillment of this type and shadow of the Old Testament in the Work of Jesus on the Cross.

Let’s go back to the verse I quoted in Bible study from Revelation 21.  The whole book of Revelation has been misused and misinterpreted to the political ends of man for centuries.  Again, my series on Daniel 9 is helpful in understanding my view of eschatology.  The label is amillennialism and it dovetails with covenant theology of which you have heard me speak often.  In Revelation, John is recording his vision after seeing the open Book of Life, the book that Daniel was instructed to close in his dream.  The most helpful way to read Revelation is to see the same story told from seven points of view, rather than the laborious and impractical manner of viewing it as repetitious and cyclical.  What we see described is the heavenly Jerusalem.  This is a vital point and one that I hope is not lost in all of the dispensational mindsets that we Americans have held fast for decades.

Israel in the Old Testament and the Covenants between God and Israel are given as types and shadows of the ultimate heavenly Jerusalem.  Israel was supposed to be an example in this world, in this present Age, of what Heaven would be in the future Age to Come.  Unfortunately, Israel consisted of fallen men and became a poor shadow of that which it was supposed to model for us on this world.  But Abraham knew that Jerusalem and Israel were pointing to something else, not of this world, and much greater.  Through the Covenant of Abraham, the promise is made to the remnant, and the promise is kept.  Jesus is the fulfillment of that promise.  Jesus fulfills the Law and reconciles His chosen people, the new Israel in Christ, to Himself.

Therefore, when John says this in Revelation 21:22, And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb, we can discuss this in the context of the New Jerusalem actually being in the Age to Come, in the New Heaven and the New Earth.  These places are not of this world in this present age.  The Temple is Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb, who is Jesus.  Through the Holy Spirit, that indwells all true believers, we become part of the Body of Christ.  In this way, we truly are a part of the New Temple of Jesus.  We become just another brick in the wall.  But more importantly, we should view it like this. 

We have justly become-- all of us elect, through faith alone, by His Grace alone, through Christ alone, to the Glory of God alone, as revealed generally in Scripture alone, and specifically to each of us by the work of the Holy Spirit alone-- we have justly become another of the countless bricks in the New Temple of Christ.

--Troll--

Nehemiah from 20,000 feet

Today, we witnessed an interesting exchange between points of view that some may be surprised to hear are very similar, particularly on second glance.  My purpose in this post is to flesh out the discussion in some detail with specific interest given to the issue of covenant.

A covenant, in Biblical terms, is sort of a legal contract between two parties.  The ancient near-Eastern Suzerainty treaties are of a similar type.  There would be animals cut into pieces displayed on the ground with a path between them.  The parties of the treaty would pass between the pieces.  The higher king would pass first, and the lower vassal king would pass second, and blood from the animals would be splattered upon the vassal king.  The implication was that the fate of the animals would be the vassal king's fate if he broke the treaty.  The burden of obedience was upon the vassal king.

In addition, there was a feast given by the vassal king for the higher king to celebrate the treaty.  At the feast, there would be a telling of the story of the higher king.  This would eventually get to the story of his involvement with the vassal king.  Finally, the conditions of the covenant would be spelled out for all to hear.  This was a public event.

In Genesis, there are a number of covenants, but dealing with just two is sufficient for our purposes.  The creation covenant is an understood covenant between creator and creature (Adam.) This covenant is not specifically spelled out, but the events of Genesis 3 clearly demonstrate the violation of this covenant and the curses received for this violation.  Many things can be said about this covenant.  It was a covenant of law.  It had the form of do this and you will live, do it not and you will die.  Adam chose badly.  As our federal representative, not only was his sin imputed to all of us, but it is as if we were there with him.  We not only would not have advised him differently, but we would have made the same choice.  This resulted in sin and death entering the world.

God had some options at this point.  He could have wiped out creation and started over.  He is just and Holy and this action would have been completely just.  Instead, He had a grand redemptive plan.  It is important as a Christian to understand the scope of the plan, and the fact that God was working towards this plan from the very beginning.  Each covenant has a purpose within this grand redemptive plan, but the ultimate goal is the salvation of a remnant of people for Himself for eternity.  All of the pieces fit together.

The Covenant with Abraham is the key moment of Genesis after the fall.  It is arguably the key moment of the Old Testament.  The story of Abraham is set out from Genesis 12-18.  Genesis 15 has the description of the Covenant ceremony.  The important issue is that God passes through the pieces and symbolically the blood is splattered on God.  Behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.  God takes all of the responsibility on Himself.  This is absolutely huge, and this is the point that my friend this morning was making.  God never breaks a covenant.  It was Adam who broke the creation covenant and Israel who broke the Mosaic Covenant.  The Abrahamic Covenant is still intact. 

But the Abrahamic Covenant, by its very nature, is a wholly different type of covenant.  This covenant is of Grace, not of Law.  There is no curse placed upon or threatened upon Abraham or his seed.  The language of the covenant opens some interesting possibilities that we will discuss at a later time.  The important issue is that there is a distinction between Law and Grace, or as Luther says, Law and Gospel.  These are different types of Covenants.  The burdens are on different parties.  The expected end point of each type of covenant is different.  A covenant of Law after the fall is expected to be broken by man.  A covenant of Grace cannot be broken, because God does not ever break covenants.

Moses made a Covenant with God that was completely about Law.  The Ten Commandments are the articulation of the moral law that is spelled out upon the hearts of all men.  This law is common revelation to all creation.  Moses received an amped up version in writing.  The issue of rabbinical or Levitical law has been discussed in a prior post.  It is tied up in the Mosaic Covenant, and thus it ends when this covenant ends.  The Moral Law is actually bound up in general revelation.  It is specifically held as remaining valid by Jesus in Matthew 5.  But Moses received Law.  Do this and you will live, live well, in this land.  Do this not and you will die, be scattered, be exiled from the land.

In each of the subsequent covenants, as Israel repeatedly falls short of the expectation of God, Israel attempts to atone for their sins and keep the Covenant going.  The purpose of the temple was to teach us about sin and atonement.  It was to teach us about the work that Jesus would do on the cross, only to much larger degree.  The Jewish sacrificial system is a type and shadow that points to Calvary.  This is a bloody religion.  Lots of animals get butchered.  This blood is important as a type and shadow that points to the blood of Christ.  The blood of the New Covenant in Christ will follow the types and shadows of the Old Testament covenants.

Nehemiah comes along in a different era of redemptive history.  The time of Christ is known as Second Temple Judaism.  This is because the Babylonians destroyed the first temple and now Ezra is building the second at our point in the story.  Nehemiah appeals to the Covenant of Moses.  This is done for a number of reasons.  The Mosaic Covenant is the article whereby Jerusalem and the Temple were built.  Its violation by Israel was the cause of the sacking of the city and the Temple.  The hope to rebuild the city and the Temple is a hope to renew the Mosaic Covenant.  Repentance is necessarily part and parcel of this effort, and it is an admission of Israel's culpability in the breaking of the Mosaic Covenant.

Having said all of that, the model here in Ezra and Nehemiah resembles that of the lesser covenants in the Bible, those renewal ceremonies where Israel sort of hopes they still have a deal and goes through the motions.  Why would God allow this to continue?  Perhaps there is value in this type and shadow preserving the language of Covenant for the coming of Jesus.  But God does not speak to Nehemiah in the manner than He does with Abraham, Moses and David.  There is no guarantee that God is a participant in the ritual Ezra recites.  And even if God did participate, this is still a covenant of Law.

The purpose of all of these Law Covenants is to teach Israel the futility of fulfilling these Law covenants after the fall.  Israel is being taught to look away from themselves, back to God.  They are being taught that they are in a hopeless situation without God.  They are being taught that fallen man is condemned.

The Abrahamic Covenant is specifically linked to the New Covenant in Jesus by Paul in Romans 4.  These are covenants of Grace.  These are not about man, they are about what God does for man.  The reason that the reformation makes good sense is because of the types and shadows of these Covenants all point towards Christ.

Notice how the prophets speak of the second Temple.  I'm waiting.  I've written about Daniel 9 (part one is just below part 2) in the past, and I'll refer that to you here.  Daniel speaks of the seventy year exile, and then he speaks of the messiah.  When he speaks of the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Holy Place, there is no talk of covenant with Israel.  He never talks about a new Covenant of Law between God and Israel.  The New Covenant of which Daniel speaks is between the messiah and many, and it comes afterwards.  Daniel gets a glimpse at the Book of Life, and he knows that something much bigger is coming.  The whole Old Testament is designed to give us the types and shadows that teach us how to recognize Jesus as the Christ.

Nehemiah is a story of a man perched at the last moment of premessionic history, at a moment in redemptive history when Israel believes that they have been given a second chance.  Instead, God is moving the story of redemptive history in a wholy different direction.  Israel, for the most part, missed it then, and they miss it now.  The Covenant that matters is with Abraham.  Abraham points to the promise that is redemption through the work of Jesus on the cross.

--Troll--

Thoughts on Nehemiah 1

In the context of Bible study, it is not often that full, coherent opinions on the section can be given. Thus, today, I offer these thoughts.

In terms of the story of redemptive history weaving through the Bible, Nehemiah is a critical moment. A brief review of the covenants in the Bible will be helpful at this point. In addition, in terms of the countdown prophesies of Daniel, Nehemiah is the moment in the historical narrative where things get set up for the coming of Jesus.

The Covenants of the Old Testament begin with the creation covenant, which is not specifically articulated. At the point of creation, Adam is capable of fulfilling a covenant of law, the understood covenant that exists between creator and creature. After the fall, man was no longer able to keep the law; further proof being offered by the flood. This is why Genesis 15, or the whole section from 12-18 concerning Abraham, is so important. In the manner of Suzerainty treaties, God passes through the animal pieces in Abraham’s dream, making a promise to Abraham. The burden of obedience God places on Himself. This point is absolutely huge and is completely unlike what follows. Next, after a series of events land the Israelites in Egypt, Moses receives the Law.

A brief aside concerning the law, there are three types of law given in the Torah. The Mosaic Law is the moral law. There are other portions of law contained in Exodus as well, both civic law and ceremonial law. What has to be remembered is that Israel is a theocracy. As such, it is appropriate that the law at that moment of redemptive history contains all three types of law. This becomes very important in the New Testament.

The Mosaic Covenant is famously violated before Moses can even get down from the mountain to present it. It can be argued, validly, that Israel had lost their inheritance at that moment. But God was merciful and allowed Israel to, eventually, inherit the land promise of the Mosaic Covenant. Skipping forward to 2 Chronicles 36, we see clear and obvious evidence that God has seen enough. Jerusalem is burned to the ground and Israel is scattered. This is known as the Diaspora. At the end of 2 Chronicles 36 is the edict of Cyrus. This is an important event that is the reference point for three related books, Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel.

The Diaspora is the exact punishment that God outlines for Israel for breaking the Mosaic Covenant. Notice in Exodus 24 that the Covenant is sealed by the sprinkling of blood on the Israelites. The words of Exodus from 18-30 are all in this format: do this and you shall live; do it not and you shall die. Do this and you get the land and your nation; do it not and you lose it all. The sprinkling of blood on the Israelites signifies that the burden of obedience falls to them. They have clearly broken the Covenant, yet again, by the end of 2 Chronicles; and this time, God has run out of patience.

Throughout the historical narratives leading up to the reign of Solomon, there are covenant renewal ceremonies. The reason for this is obvious: Israel keeps breaking the covenant. As federal representatives of the nation of Israel, the theocracy that is in covenant with God, the leaders reaffirm the Mosaic Covenant as each new ruler begins his reign. Two things should strike you at this point. Israel has been unfaithful and God has been exceedingly patient and merciful. This covenant should not need to be renewed, but since man can’t keep the Law after the fall, Israel keeps scrambling to renew the covenant. When God says enough, Israel is destroyed. This is the end of the Mosaic covenant once and for all.

This is also the end of the types of law unique to the theocracy of Israel, civil and ceremonial law.  Only the moral law remains.  Israel never quite figures this out.  When Jesus says that he has not come to cancel the law, He is referring to the moral law.  This is a huge point, but it is made clear throughout the New Testament, particularly in Galatians.

Notice that the ritual established by Ezra is merely a shadow of the old Temple ritual. Why is this? Have all of the priests been wiped out and no lineage remains of the old ways? By whose edict did Israel return to the land and rebuild the Temple? The edict came from Cyrus, not from God. This new Israel is not a theocracy in covenant relationship with the God of Moses. Of note, the same can be said about Israel circa 1948 A.D. This new Israel of Ezra and Nehemiah is out of Covenant. They are there by the grace of a human king, not by the Grace of God.

Finally, we come to Nehemiah 1. Look at his prayer again in this Covenant context. In the first sentence, Nehemiah is calling upon the Covenant of God with Moses. What is amazingly poignant is at the same time missing the boat. Why would Nehemiah appeal to Moses? He appeals to Moses because he does not understand Abraham. The Mosaic Covenant is broken, but the Abrahamic Covenant remains intact. His appeal was to something that was lost, not to something older and still in force. The fact that the Mosaic Covenant is broken is not lost on Nehemiah. He prays for all of Israel. He tries to repent for the sins of a nation, for the sins of a people. He tries to pray Israel back into covenant relationship with God, not realizing that there is still an older covenant intact.

One other question is this:  Is Nehemiah a person who can be a federal head of Israel?  The reason genealogies are important in the Old Testament is that we need to know that various people are in the royal line and can therefore make binding Covenants with God.  We will come back to this in Chapter 8.

One final word about the last line of Chapter 1: Now I was cupbearer to the King. This is an interesting symbol dropped down at the end of the chapter. Obviously, this was not written with a chapter break at this point, but we receive it this way now. Clearly this is an important issue. A couple of weeks ago, during Holy Week, we discussed the Cup of Wrath and the Cup of the New Covenant. I will refer you again to this excellent article by Brent McGuire. And now, we see another place where a cup appears in a prominent position in a narrative. If Israel follows the path of trying to return to Moses, which cup will this represent?

The Law is given to convict us of sin. Israel has not yet learned, and they are not listening to their own prophets.

--Troll--