Stephen
Terry, Director
Nehemiah
Commentary
for the October 12, 2019 Sabbath School Lesson
Then I said to them, "You see the trouble we are in:
Jerusalem lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us
rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, and we will no longer be in disgrace."
Nehemiah 2:17, NIV
As we enter the second week of this quarter's lessons,
we are dealing with the construction of a wall. It is perhaps ironic that there
is much ongoing political discourse regarding the construction of a wall along the
southern border of the United States. Perhaps this is a much larger example of
the goal of a gated community to keep the riff raff out. In this day of cruise
missiles and strategic bombers, it cannot be claimed as useful for defense.
That idea died almost six centuries ago when the walls of Constantinople
buckled before the cannons of the Ottomans under Mehmed II. However, a thousand
years before that, walls were essential for the defense of a city and even then
could serve the dual purpose of also keeping out undesirables. The temple had
been rebuilt in about 516 BC, fulfilling the 70-year timeline of Jeremiah's
prophecy[i] referred to by Daniel.[ii] The temple in Jerusalem
and Jerusalem itself had been destroyed in 586/587 BC But it would be
approximately another 70 years after the temple was restored before Nehemiah
would arise to rebuild the walls surrounding the city. The Bible is not clear
on why it took so long. It mentions the work stoppage on the restoration of the
temple for approximately half a dozen years. Although there were those opposed
to the rebuilding of Jerusalem's wall, according to Nehemiah, unlike the
temple, the work did not stop until completed.
I have been much perplexed so far at the assertions of
the lesson quarterly without adequate cites. I do not understand such scholarship
and such poor editing that allows it to be published without support. We had
the issue of the seventy years of Daniel supposedly beginning in 606 BC last
week, and now we have the claim that when the temple was being restored and the
work was stopped, those stopping the work tore down the city walls. The lesson
cites Ezra 4:23[iii]
as evidence, but the editor must have missed that one because the passage says
nothing about the walls. It also makes no sense, for if the work was resumed on
the temple, why was it not resumed on the walls if that were the case? It is
surprising to me that a quarterly author would play so fast and loose with the
biblical account without proper citations to back up their assertions. Perhaps
much of the problem is derived from two different shibboleths that are made
difficult if not impossible to overcome. The first of these is the problems
caused by the variant names used for the kings, variations made necessary by
the vastness of their dominions. A king known by one name in Babylon, maybe
have his name rendered differently in Persian, Greek, Aramaic, or Egyptian. To
further complicate things, a king's father may be referred to in his lineage
when the individual may actually be a grandfather or a father by adoption or
due to a marriage. Over time, some of these issues have obtained more clarity
thanks to the intrepid archaeologists who are constantly uncovering the past.
But this brings us to the second and perhaps most
unmovable of the two shibboleths. Ellen White, perhaps based on what was
understood in her day, or in the absence of actual knowledge regarding the
issue, stated in "Prophets and Kings,"[iv] that a King Darius reigned
over Babylon for two years before Cyrus became king. We now know that such a
king likely did not exist, but she apparently relied on a source that made such
an assertion and as a result the 70-year prophecy did not work. Therefore in order
to make it fit the beginning of the prophecy had to be moved back, and in order
to do that, it was tied to the date 606 BC when it was claimed the first
captives were taken to Babylon, referring specifically to Daniel and his
friends. However, as I have said previously this quarter, these were probably not
captives in the typical sense of the word but young nobles assigned to the
court of a king as a pledge of faithfulness by a vassal, a practice common at
the time. They would be treated as nobles and educated, as Daniel and his friends
were, in the best schools in the kingdom. The idea off their captivity is only
made necessary if one clings to idea of a king that probably did not exist, and
that the 70 years is tied to the period of captivity as opposed to the period
of desolation of the temple. But Darius I did not begin his reign until 522 BC,
and this is more likely when Daniel says he began praying about the fulfillment
of Jeremiah's prophecy.[v] He may have been influence
to pray by the news of the work stoppage on the restoration of the temple and
hoped that God might influence the new king, Darius I, to allow the work to
resume, which did happen, allowing the temple to be completed in congruence with
the timeline of seventy years since its destruction.
Since this all fits so smoothly together, I am not sure
why we are so reluctant to abandon the idea of the seventy years beginning with
Daniel going to Babylon. Perhaps it is because we feel bound to support
literally every fact Ellen White cites, but to do so actually places her
authority above that of the Bible, for where Ellen White is silent, we can
allow our knowledge of history to inform our understanding of the biblical
text, but where she has spoken, any alternative view may not be accepted. We
pride ourselves on continuing the idea of "sola scriptura" proposed by
the great Protestant reformers, yet we too often find it difficult to honor
that principle if a more informed understanding of the text differs from that
of our denominational founders. To this day, in Bible studies, we often hear,
"Yes, but what did Ellen White say about it?" While her writings
carry the heady incense of holy inspiration, some of the historical
underpinnings she has used in her narrative series have tottered and even
crumbled over time. However, even if a more modern understanding would support
the narrative even better, we are reluctant to embrace it, preferring the now
obsolete understanding as "inspired." As a result, we tend toward splits
in theology between those who can see the inconsistencies and those who refuse
to admit that inconsistencies exist. Burying our heads in the sand over such
things, promotes the promulgation of anachronistic ideas such as Headship
Theology, Last Generation Perfectionism, extremes in diet and dress, as well as
insularity against anything modern, which is seen as a threat to these ancient
monuments to an outdated perspective.
I count it a pity we cannot study Ezra and Nehemiah
without bringing along all of this dated detritus from the past. It will mean
we will miss much that we might have studied and learned about otherwise.
Unfortunately, at the Dallas General Conference in 1980, we chose to put on a
creedal "straight jacket" and are now bound to that garment, and
whenever anyone attempts to question why that jacket is necessary, we go about
making adjustments to the straps, making them ever tighter to restrict any
wiggle room even more. Perhaps none of those straps is as tight as the one
pertaining to Ellen White and the importance of her perspective in defining the
rest. As a result, Ellen White has been forced to step down from her role as a
prophetess, and has instead become a political tool to manipulate and control
who shall have power and who shall not in the denomination, and therefore also
who controls the narrative of belief.
This is not a new scenario. It has raised its head many
times during the two millennia since the incarnation. However, it has never extirpated
alternative perspectives. It may succeed in driving them from the doors of a
denomination, but in doing so it only changes the Christian church from the
body of Christ to Babylon as it sows confusion with the proliferation of ever
more denominations that cannot live with one another in harmony. Each
denomination thinks they have finally found the answer to becoming the true
church until the lie becomes apparent as they begin to drive members from their
ranks who are not "true" enough. Some might question, "Why did
Paul write about disfellowshipping then?[vi] Perhaps the answer is the
same as Jesus gave when asked why Moses allowed divorce. It is because of the
hardness of our hearts. Even Paul, in a later letter, relented and urged compassion
in his statements regarding that particular situation.[vii] Whenever we decide someone
should be removed from fellowship, we might ask ourselves "But what if I
am wrong?"
When Luther stood before the Diet of Worms, he
repeatedly asked them to show him from the Bible where he was in error in his
writings. He did not appeal to the great theologians of the preceding 1500
years. He did not appeal to any of the creeds written or counsels convened over
that time. He did not cite patristic literature. All of these things his
detractors did. He simply pointed to the Bible and said show me my error from
there. Is it possible we could do the same, or is it too late?
