Stephen
Terry, Director
Making
Sense of History: Zerubbabel and Ezra
Commentary
for the October 5, 2019 Sabbath School Lesson
In the first year of
Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by
Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a
proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing: "This is what
Cyrus king of Persia says: 'The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the
kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at
Jerusalem in Judah. Any of his people among you may go up to Jerusalem in Judah
and build the temple of the Lord, the God of Israel, the God who is in
Jerusalem, and may their God be with them." Ezra 1:1-3, NIV
How strange it is that our lesson title this week says
"Making Sense of History," and right off the bat, the author begins
with a historical inaccuracy. The date given for the fall of Jerusalem is 606
BC. However, the general historical consensus is that Jerusalem fell in 587 or
586 BC, fully twenty years later.[i] Why would the lesson do
this? Perhaps it is because the fall of Babylon to Cyrus the Great is well
documented to have occurred in 539 BC, and both Jeremiah and Daniel refer to 70
years of Babylonian captivity. This creates a problem because from 587 to 539
BC is slightly less than 50 years. Even with a little fudging, we cannot make
it 70. Some have tried to stretch it by using the date Nebuchadnezzar put
Zedekiah on the throne in Jerusalem, but even that only gets us ten more years,
still fully a decade less than 70. The author offers no justification for the
606 BC date, perhaps because there is none. It does not bode well for our study
this quarter that instead of recognizing that the biblical account is not in
harmony with the historical record, the author prefers to simply alter history.
If that is what "making sense" means, we open ourselves up to
needless ridicule.
In any event, regardless of the seventy-year conundrum,
Cyrus and his Persian army sweep down from the north, a territory we now
associate with Iran and defeats King Nabonidus of Babylon in battle at Opis on the
Tigris River. Nabonidus withdrew to the Euphrates to establish new battle
lines, expecting the Persians to remain in hot pursuit, but Cyrus did not
oblige him. Instead he swept down the Euphrates valley directly to Babylon and
laid siege to the city. The city fell and according to the Cyrus Cylinder, a
cuneiform account of the event, the city was taken without a battle and the
citizens welcomed Cyrus because Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar had disparaged
the Babylonian chief god Marduk. Nabonidus surrendered to Cyrus, perhaps after
Belshazzar was killed, and was allowed to go into exile in peace. As Ezra tells
us, Cyrus freed the Jews to return to Jerusalem in his first year of reign.
This only adds to the discrepancy dilemma as it further solidifies the return date
for the Jews at 539/538 BC. Either the date for the fall of Jerusalem is in
error, occurring like the lesson author says around 606 BC, a date without any
historical corroboration, or Daniel and Jeremiah were wrong.
The only other possibility I can see is that the temple
in Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC and it was rebuilt in 516 BC, a period of
seventy years. However, the prophecy is tied to the issuance of specific
decrees which argues against that interpretation. The bottom line is that we
cannot find historical evidence to corroborate every aspect of the 70-year
prophecy. This may argue strongly for a metaphorical understanding instead. The
number seven, as we can see even from the Genesis Creation story is equated
with completeness, and we may simply be looking at a metaphorical statement that
when the time was completed or fulfilled, the Jews would return to Jerusalem.
Regardless of the dates, one thing that can be agreed upon is that the Jews did
return to Jerusalem and did rebuild the temple and eventually, the city walls,
also, over the better part of the ensuing century.
Zerubbabel, who led out in the rebuilding of the temple,
was a descendant of King David through his son Nathan, according to Luke's
account.[ii] However, we encounter yet
another contradiction, for Matthew states that Zerubbabel was descended through
David's son Solomon.[iii]
Some have stated that they think the discrepancy as far as it pertains to Christ
is because one account traces Jesus' mother's genealogy while the other traces
his father's, the Solomonaic line establishing royal blood and Nathan's line
establishing a priestly inheritance. However, Zerubbabel also has discrepancies
in his lineage prior to Shealtiel which would make him a nexus of the two lines
prior to Jesus with the genealogy diverging again after Zerubbabel and only
coming together again in Jesus. If Jesus was a priest through Nathan and a king
through Solomon, what could be the purpose of converging those two lines in
Zerubbabel and then again in Jesus several generations later? It may be
difficult to find a justification in literalism, but if we return to metaphor
other possibilities open up. Zerubbabel may be presented here as a type of
Messiah with Jesus being the antitype. Same parallels are evident to support
that understanding. First, based on the genealogies, both are priest kings in the
Davidic line. Second, Zerubbabel is associated with rebuilding the temple.
Jesus was accused of wanting to tear it down.[iv] Those who accused him did
not understand the temple Zerubbabel had built and had recently been replaced
by one constructed by Herod were types and Jesus was simply moving people from
the physical type to the spiritual antitype. Even his disciples were slow to
understand this as they continued to make the temple the center for their worship
even after Jesus was crucified, risen and ascended. Perhaps this necessitated
the final destruction of the type in 70 AD by the Romans so that the spiritual antitype
could grow and become the new reality. In spite of all of that, we still tend
to define the kingdom of God with buildings and real estate, whether we are
talking about stadium-sized mega churches or simply, white country churches
with a bell in the steeple.
In the time of Zerubbabel and Ezra these things were
maybe not as clear as we have the advantage of looking back through the
focusing lens of the cross. We should not judge their understanding too harshly
because of that advantage. We can see the type and antitype side by side and
make the comparisons they invite. They were rejoicing in their new found
liberty, and being able to rebuild the temple was symbolic of that freedom. As
will be evident this quarter freedom does not come without obstacles. But those
barriers help to define its worth. Freedom and liberty are not written so much
in the failures that have tripped up their path. Instead their strength is found
in the trials overcome and the wisdom and strength those challenges confer.
Just as Zerubbabel's temple was symbolic of their
freedom, the spiritual temple Jesus meant to bring about offers spiritual
liberty[v] that transcends physical
realities reducing them to perceptual ephemera in the context of eternity.
Perhaps this is why there is so much metaphor to be found in the Bible. It is
hard for the literal to make that transition. Just as the literal temple had to
be destroyed so that it would no longer be an obstacle to understanding the metaphorical,
spiritual one, maybe we need to reconsider the literal shibboleths we cling to
that hinder our understanding of more persistent, eternal realities. Some would
exclude others from paradise over literal transgressions in regards to diet,
dress or order of worship service. However, Jesus pointed out none of these
things as being of eternal significance. Instead, he and the Old Testament
prophets identified these things as only the types they were intended to be to
transition us to the antitypes that had real significance in the spiritual world
of eternity. Instead of heavy burdens of obedience to those literal types,
Jesus revealed through parables the things that really stood in the way of
eternal paradise. In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats,[vi] it wasn't worship styles,
dress or diet that made the difference. It was compassion and service. Isaiah
also pointed out that no matter how many sacrifices we offer to God, only the
compassion we show to others will be of any spiritual profit.[vii] Jesus also quoted the prophet
Hosea[viii] reminding us that God
finds value in mercy that we extend to others rather than in sacrifices we
might offer him.
Sometimes we are tempted to believe that salvation both
spiritual and secular resides in perfect obedience to sets of rules. But the
spirit which causes us to cavil over those rules and to seek ways around them
that do not literally break them reveal that we are far from even the type those
rules would point us toward. For instance if we decide that there is a rule
about paying tithe (a tenth of our income) to God (in reality to the church as
God doesn't need our money), then we begin to ferret out a literal
understanding. We decide whether it is referring to our net income or our gross.
Once we get over that hurdle, we parse out to the exact penny how much is God's
and how much is ours. Next we pat ourselves on the back for being faithful
tithe payers in spite of our penny pinching that made sure God did not end up
with more than he was entitled to. All the while we are making sure that our
actions mesh perfectly with this intricate literalism, we may have failed to
even draw near to the kingdom of heaven where mercy reigns over sacrifice. If
we wish to be free of such burdens, maybe we can find our priorities in helping
others find freedom from those things they lack that bind them in poverty,
distress and despair. In helping them find their freedom, we may find our own.
