Outline History Of The Seventy Weeks Nation - Chapter 4

CHAPTER IV

A NATION WITHOUT A HISTORY

“Happy is that nation that has no history.” To reverse the adage, The nation that has no history is happy. History in this sense is the story of strife and conflict, war and calamity. In times of peace and prosperity, when there is little to disturb the even flow of life, incidents are rare. It is the practice of both individuals and corporate bodies to leave unrecorded the brighter side of fortune. Struggle and conflict, war and catastrophe fill chapters of the records, while periods of peace and prosperity are dismissed in silence or honoured with a few brief paragraphs. It is the unusual that arrests attention. Very little is known about the new nation during the Persian period. In the absence of records to the contrary, we are left to assume that peace and prosperity marked the life of the Jews [sic Judaeans] at this time. It is not until Alexander the Great appears on the horizon that storm clouds begin to gather and “history” begins to be written. The only information we have of the Jews [sic Judaeans] during this period is such knowledge as may be gleaned from the Prophets of the time and from the works of ancient writers.

We are left to infer that with the setting up of the Seventy Weeks Nation Judea was raised to the dignity of a province of the Persian empire. ^l For more than a century, with the exception of the few years of Cambyses, the Artaxerxes of Ezra iv, 6, the attitude of the Persian rulers to the Jewish [sic Judaean] state was one of benevolent toleration. Cyrus, Darius Hystaspes, Xerxes I and Artaxerxes all treated the province of Judea with consideration and even magnanimity. The governors of neighbouring provinces had instructions to assist the Jews [sic Judaeans], and

              ¹ Ezra v, 8;  Neh. i, 3.

such opposition as was offered by men like Tatnai was discontinued by imperial command. Indeed, it was never anything more than official zeal for the good of the empire and its ruler. The difficulties encountered by the young state arose not from its foes without; they sprang from its foes within.

The new state was a nation but not a kingdom. The primary meaning of the word “nation,” the dictionary tells us, is a number of people “Born of the same stock: the people inhabiting the same country, or under the same government.” The people of the Seventy Weeks Nation were born of the same stock. They were descendants of Abraham. One of their chief cares was to discourage any intermixture by marriage with those of other races. Pride of race was and is a distinguishing feature of the Jews [sic Judaeans]. It was customary for the Persian rulers to characterise tributary states as nations. Thus Darius the Mede notified the various nations of the empire of his decree of religious toleration for the Jews [sic Judaeans] in his own kingdom. ¹

While the new state was a nation it was not a kingdom. It had no king. Neither Zerubbabel nor Ezra nor Nehemiah had received any authority to set up a throne. That some form of government was in force we must assume as a social necessity; but what form of government prevailed during the Persian period can be gathered only from the writings of the Prophets who flourished at the time, and from such ancient authors as make any reference to the Jews [sic Judaeans]. We can say definitely what the government was not. It was not a theocracy in the sense that early Israel was. Its overlord was the king of Persia. It was not a monarchy like Israel in David’s time. It was not a republic with the right of independent legislative and political action. It was not a democracy with full

             ¹ Daniel vi, 25.

authority vested in the people. Nor could it be called at this time a pure hagiocracy.

Tacitus sets out “to trace the origin of the people” ¹ (Jews [sic Judaeans]) but while he has much to say about their religion, based mainly upon hearsay evidence, he contributes nothing to our knowledge of their political organisation in the Persian period. “The God of the Jews [sic Judaeans] is the great governing mind, that directs and guides the whole frame of nature, eternal, infinite, and neither capable of change nor subject to decay.” ² But the Jewish [sic Judaean] nation, as stated above, was not a theocracy, and these words, valuable as they are as a testimony to their faith, cast no light on their political institutions during the Persian period.

From Josephus, and from the contemporary Prophets, we learn that the Jewish [sic Judaean] state was, politically, like other provinces in the empire while in religion it was granted freedom to follow the faith of Israel of old. All provinces had a titular head commonly called a governor. “They delivered the king’s commissions ... to the governors on this side of the river.” ³       Nehemiah was entrusted with messages to the governors beyond the river. ⁴ In the same manner the Jewish [sic Judaean] State had its governor. “Let the governor of the Jews [sic Judaeans] and the elders of the Jews [sic Judaeans] build this house of God.” ⁵      Nehemiah speaks of himself as governor. “From the time I was appointed to be their governor” ⁶ and contrasts his financial policy with that of “former governors.” ⁷ Again we read of “the days of Nehemiah the governor,” ⁸ Haggai refers to Zerubbabel as governor (viceroy) of Judah, ii, 21, and Malachi asks if their imperfect offerings would be acceptable to the governor (viceroy), i, 8. The records concerning

                    ¹ History v, 5.              ² History v, 5.

                    ³ Ezra viii, 36.              ⁴ Nehemiah ii, 7.

                    ⁵ Ezra vi, 7.                  ⁶ Nehemiah v, 14.

                    ⁷ Ibid. v, 15.                  ⁸ Ibid. xii, 26.

Zerubbabel, ^l Ezra, and Nehemiah show that their appointments were made by authority of the king. We have seen that the elders of the Jews [sic Judaeans] are coupled with the governor in Ezra vi, 7, but they were not at this time the supreme authority in the state. Nehemiah asserts his authority over them ² and there is no objection raised. From this we must infer the supreme authority was vested in the governor. It should be noted that Nehemiah was a layman and not a priest. Such rule is in keeping with that which marked the period of Moses, when Moses and not Aaron was the governor of the people. It was Moses, the national leader, and not Aaron the priest, who exercised authority at the time of the golden calf incident.³ Moses reproved both the priests and Aaron, and Aaron acknowledged Moses as his lord. ⁴

A reason for the political peace at this time may be found in the loyalty of the Jewish [sic Judaean] state to the court of Persia. That this loyalty marked the whole period till the rise of Alexander the Great is a just inference. During his seven months’ siege of Tyre, 333 B.C., Alexander sent to the Jewish [sic Judaean] high-priest in Jerusalem a demand for supplies for his army, and a further demand that the tribute formerly sent to Darius III should henceforth be sent to himself as the new master. The reply of the high-priest is a tribute to his high sense of honour and to his loyalty to the Persian overlord. “The high-priest answered the messengers, that he had given his oath to Darius not to bear arms against him; and he said he would not transgress this while Darius was in the land of the living.” ⁵ The friendly attitude of the Persian court had merited such loyalty, but friendliness is not always rewarded with such noble gratitude.

During this period the chief foes of the state were

                        ¹ 1 Esdras iii, iv.                     ² Neherniah xiii, 4-14.

                        ³ Exodus xxxii, 19-29.           ⁴ Ibid. xxxii, 22.

               ⁵ Josephus, Antiq. xi, 8, 3.

within and not without. Religious infidelity and the tendency to compromise, which had wrought such havoc in the life of Israel, showed themselves again in this early period of the Jewish [sic Judaean] state. The Temple was there, but it was not honoured as it should have been. The city walls were built, but however useful they were in protecting them against the enemy without they were no safeguard against spiritual declension and moral corruption within. During Nehemiah’s temporary absence “Eliashib the priest, having the oversight of the chamber of the house of our God, was allied unto Tobiah: and he prepared for him a great chamber” ¹ actually within the sacred precincts of the Temple. Eliashib was the high-priest; Tobiah was an Ammonite enemy of the people. During the formal institution of the Law they had read in Deuteronomy “And therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever,” ² but in complete disregard of this injunction Eliashib had taken Tobiah into his bosom. Eliashib was the high-priest, and Tobiah an Ammonite, so the high-priest, who might be supposed to be a custodian of tradition, made a domicile for one of the hated race in the sacred building itself. This looked like an act of defiance. On his return, Nehemiah “cast forth all the household stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber,” ³ as at a later date the Messiah cleansed the Temple of the money changers, who had defiled the house of the Lord by turning it into a den of thieves.

It was only to be expected that the rank and file would fail in their duty to the Temple when its chief official had so conspicuously failed. The Temple dues were not being paid and the Levites were driven by

                ¹ Nehemiah xiii, 4.

                    ² Ibid. xiii, 1, (but cf. Deuteronomy xxii, 34.)

                    ³ Ibid. viii.

force of circumstances to work in their fields to the neglect of their sacred duties. “I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given them: for the Levites and the singers, that did the work, were fled everyone to his field.” ¹ It was a divine provision that the Levites should have land abutting on the city for the maintenance of their cattle. ² Since their services were in the interest of the whole nation, it was a divine decree that they should be a public charge. The Temple was to be the nucleus around which all the activities of the state should gather, and the nation could flourish only as long as the sacred rites were supported and maintained. Failure at the centre meant failure in the whole circumference. Malachi accuses the people of robbing God Himself by withholding their tithes and offerings ³ and as a challenge to an adventurous faith bids them put God to the test.

Here then was an abuse calling for vigorous reform. With characteristic zeal Nehemiah addressed himself to the task. He accused the rulers of forsaking the house of God and caused “the tithe of the corn and the new wine and the oil” to be brought into the storehouses of the Temple. ⁴

A further abuse was the desecration of the sabbath by free and open trading. Merchants of Tyre were established within the city. The Jews [sic Judaeans] themselves were openly violating the regulations of the sabbath day. The strong hand of Nehemiah put down such irregularities. “And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought

         ¹ Nehemiah xiii, 10.         ² Numbers xxxv, 1-8.

         ³ Malachi iii, 8.              ⁴ Nehemiah xiii, 12.

in on the sabbath day.” ¹ “For one or two sabbaths the traders and dealers in all manner of wares trafficked outside Jerusalem. But I protested. I said to them, ‘Why are you remaining about the walls? If you do it again I will punish you.’ From that moment, they never came again on the sabbath” (Moffatt). ²

From these incidents we learn that the chief authority in the new nation was not the priest but the governor. By tacit consent, he held autocratic power.

          ¹ Nehemiah xiii, 19.             ² Ibid. xiii, 20.