There is an often held belief that the books of the Old Testament and the books of the New Testament are represented by a very different God and a very different relationship to His people. Many people believe that the God of wrath in the Old Testament is not comparable to the God of love presented in the New Testament. There is division that interfaces with the pages of the Bible beginning at the first chapter of Matthew that we infer separates these two testaments in very serious ways.
This is simply not the case. While there are differences in how the Gospel was presented and communicated between these two epochs of redemptive history, there is a great deal of sameness in how the Yahweh of the Old Testament related to Israel and how the Theos of the New Testament relates to His church, the body of Christ. There is a God of wrath in the New Testament and a God of love in the Old Testament. How He revealed Himself has been differentiated by law and grace, but salvation has only ever come about in Christ through the call of His Spirit. However being this was differently demonstrated, the principle remains.
And so it is with the books of Nehemiah and 2 Peter. The way God is revealed and His relationship to His people is different, but the principles can be said to be the same at work in different regards. The difference occurs because of the advent and departure of Christ. The difference is between the Church and Israel. Yet, There is a vision of Yahweh that impresses us with the Old Testament and that is realized differently in later revelation.
Nehemiah ends the Old Testament story of Israel that is picked up later by the Gospels. It is accepted by conservative scholars generally that Ezra-Nehemiah consists not only of the specific history of the Jews’ return from Persian exile but was also composed from the memoirs of both Ezra and Nehemiah, though Nehemiah’s part was incorporated later into what became, from the two, a single book in the Hebrew Scriptures, which is readily accepted into our Christian Bible as two distinct books. So, it is probably safe to say that though the Hebrew writings combined these words into one book, the book of Nehemiah as found in the contemporary Bible is authored mainly by Nehemiah, though there were possibly additional insertions by later contributors before it became complete.
The reason why it can be said that Nehemiah was in fact authored by Nehemiah, is not just because of tradition but because of the simple fact that Nehemiah, the man, has written in the first person, in other words, Nehemiah begins in 1:1, “The words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah. Now it happened in the month Chislev, in the twentieth year, while I was in Susa the capitol,” The narrator continues telling how Hanani, Nehemiah’s brother, returns to him from Jerusalem along with some others to tell him the bad news and condition of the remnant “who had escaped and had survived the captivity.” Then Nehemiah mourns and weeps for the unfaithfulness of Israel in the rest of the first chapter.
Then in Nehemiah 2:1, he writes, “And it came about in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes…” Here begins his first return to Jerusalem which follows after the king’s permission is granted, but Nehemiah, after later completing the wall towards the end of the book, does leave and return again in Nehemiah 13:6 in the thirty-second year of king Artaxerxes. And these two verses, separated by eleven chapters, provide the reference points for how to date the events of Nehemiah. However, the fact is that there is an Artaxerxes I and an Artaxerxes II. If the Artaxerxes referred to in these two references is the first one, then the date for the events of Nehemiah are 445 B.C. and his return in Nehemiah 13:6 is at 433 B.C. At the same time, if the king of Persia that is referred to here is Artaxerxes II, then because his reign is later, the dates for the events described in the book of Nehemiah are 384 B.C. and 372 B.C. respectively.
The resolution to this dilemma is found in the Elephantine Papyri of Egypt which is from an island that at one point became the center for Persian control of Egypt during the height of its Empire. These papyri, discovered here, the “Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible” describes as,
The Aramaic script, though originally similar to the first Semitic writing developed from hieroglyphs, gradually changed into the square type of lettering seen on Jewish synagogues today. The Elephantine papyri exhibit one of the earliest forms of this style, which was also the most common script of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The “jot and tittle” of the time of Christ referred to this type of script. It had especially far-reaching influence in the Orient, spawning literally hundreds of kindred alphabets including Nabatean, Arabic, Palmyrene, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, and probably the Brahmi script of India.
Gleason Archer comments saying that in its writings and records it mentions
…the high priest Johanan and Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. This Johanan was a grandson of the Eliashib mentioned in Neh. 3:1 and 20, and Nehemiah was a contemporary of Eliashib. It therefore follows that when the biblical record speaks of Nehemiah going to Jerusalem in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 1:1) and again in his thirty-second year (Neh. 13:6), the reference must be to Artaxerxes I yeilding the date 445 and 433 respectively) rather than the reign of Artaxerxes II (which would result in the dates 384 and 372 respectively – far too late for the high priesthood of Johanan).
In other words, since Johanan could not have been high priest at the time of Artaxerxes II (“far too late”), and since Nehemiah was a contemporary of Eliashib, Johanan’s grandfather, this puts the events of Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes I.
The book of Nehemiah was likely originally addressed to the king as a report which explains the utter lack of reference to the day of the Lord or to judgment as found in other books. A person could infer that this is due to Nehemiah’s show of respect to his Persian king. Nehemiah’s purpose was to give a good account of himself before the king and to govern the Jewish people, though only temporarily, under his own good guidance. It was not necessary to refer to God’s future judgement under these circumstances. The provenance, or locale from which the book was written, is likely Persia from 424 B.C. to 400 B.C. immediately after Nehemiah’s two separate visits to Jerusalem.
Issues related to the historicity or reliability of Nehemiah involve a number of problems brought on by higher critics. Among others, they point out that Josephus mentions in his Antiquities in 11:324-329 that Jaddua was the high priest at the time that Alexander the Great entered Jersusalem in 330 B.C. This elicits objections from higher critics because they assert, according to Archer, that since Jaddua was mentioned in Nehemiah 12:11, that the book must have been written long after the historical Nehemiah had governance in Judea. However, as Dr. Archer points out, it is demonstrated that since the obviously fifth century characters of Sanballat and Manasseh were mentioned by Josephus in the same chapter as Jaddua, that Josephus must have apparently “garbled his sources” and that this must have been a descendant of Jaddua that welcomed Alexander the Great.
They further point out that the reference to Greek drachmas in Nehemiah 7:71 betrays a date of authorship during the reign of Alexander the Great. At the same time others have pointed out the Elephantine Papyri for evidence of Greek drachmas as far south as Egypt at the time of the reign of the Persians. Therefore, Greek trade had extended very far by the time that Nehemiah was in Jerusalem rebuilding its walls.
The memoirs of Nehemiah testify to a time in Jewish history when the people were motivated to set things right and to reestablish the covenant relationship with Yahweh in the proper place in the proper manner. But it also testifies to the flimsiness of that same heart in other ways. Soon the people would break with Yahweh yet again as they already had in the past over and over again even in very recent history with Ezra. God is always faithful. A New Testament book that in its own way carries on the conversation of the redemptive historical themes of Nehemiah is the book of 2 Peter where the church is warned in similar manner of false teachers, and the people, though motivated by the recent coming and departure of Christ, will fall away in all too similar a manner soon later.
2 Peter obviously claims to be the work of the Apostle, but this is not at all the assertion of higher critics who believe that the Greek of this epistle is far too advanced for the abilities of the common Galilean called forth from a fishing boat. They also assert that the book attacks the Gnosticism of second-century church history, among other reasonings. I disagree.
It is quite possible that while ministering “in Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome [this] might very well have furnished Peter with a training in Greek, and even a rhetorical style similar or even superior to that to be had in the classroom.” There is also no positive indication that definitively points to Gnosticism as the heresy which Peter is fighting. Perhaps it could be the early leanings of some within the church towards what would become Gnosticism, but it is not at all the definitive case that full blown Gnosticism of the second century is in view. There is simply not enough to throw away the idea that the author who claims to be Peter is actually who he says he is, which is strong enough evidence in itself.
In spite of this, some scholars are convinced that 2 Peter fits the model of a pseudonymous testament that was written in the name of the Apostle after his death. There were many such “testaments” around at a later time, and this is seen as just another one of these, though they were not written to deceive anyone. They were just written for the name sake of the person for whom it was dedicated. However, the genre in which 2 Peter so obviously belongs is clearly that of a letter and not a testament, which was actually not common in the first century Christian church at this time in history. So despite many attempts at undermining genuine Petrine authorship, the book seems best taken at face value, which is what Eusebius himself came to conclude after noting many of the doubts of his contemporaries, while many more of whom would embrace it later as authentic than any, so called “questionable book.”
Those to whom the letter is written are likely “those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia…” as in 1 Peter 1:1. This is likely the case because Peter makes reference to his earlier letter in 2 Peter 3:2 which indicates that his readers would have had prior knowledge of it as well. Also, according to tradition, scholars hold that “…Peter was martyred about a.d. 64 in Rome. If that is so, this work was probably written in Rome before a.d. 70 (before his last teaching was forgotten) and after a.d. 60 (the earliest date when Peter might have known Paul’s letters [he refers to Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16]).
According to John MacArthur, “Peter intended to instruct Christians in how to defend themselves against these false teachers and their deceptive lies. This book is the most graphic and penetrating exposé of false teachers in Scripture, comparable only to Jude.” Actually, there is some debate as to which book was written first and referenced the other, whether it was Jude or 2 Peter. It is impossible to definitively determine whether it was Jude that expanded on 2 Peter 2 or whether it was Peter that borrowed from Jude, and created a shortened version of the little epistle in chapter two of Peter’s epistle. However a person decides, it was commonplace for authors to borrow and copy other authors because at the time there were no contracts or money made from the publication of books.
Also, higher critics have asserted that 2 Peter is a piece of early Catholicism, which Carson and Moody says “fits the model badly.” They point out that there really is no reference to a form of church tradition in attacking the heresies which it does. Furthermore, the reference to “Our fathers” in 3:4 (NIV) could just as easily be such a reference that a Jewish person might have made to the fathers of Judaism in the Old Testament. Certianly, there is no need to push forward the date of the book because “our fathers” could just as likely be a reference to Peter’s Jewish heritage as well as the heritage of his readers.
Just as 2 Peter sends strong warnings, so Nehemiah in the distant past has issued strong warnings. There is something of a common sense of the need for reform in both books separated by five hundred years with the advent of Christ inbetween them. The differences between these two books could be said to be great in one sense, though there is a commonality to them in the themes of sin and the sense of grace and works in another sense. The biggest issue in common between these books is the need for obedience subsequent to the obvious grace of God and even obedience predicated on the grace of God.
One theme that is extremely relevant to the texts at hand is the issue of the conditional verses the unconditional nature of God’s covenant relationship. Both Israel and the church turn out to be just as unfaithful in spite of the warnings in both Nehemiah and 2 Peter. In Nehemiah 9, all the people of Israel assemble together in sackcloth and turn in repentance to God. The Great Revival is a “theological climax of the book of Nehemiah and of the life of Ezra (Neh. 8–10). It was a grand experience.” The “Levites, Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabniah, Sherebiah, Hodijah, Shebaniah, and Pethahiah,” then repeat out loud the history of unfaithfulness of Israel and the perfect faithfulness of Yahweh. They say in verses 7-8 of Chapter 9,
“You are the Lord, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham. You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous.”
This text illustrates two continuing aspects of God’s covenant in regards to Israel, which really has not changed in regards to the church either. There is a conditional aspect and an unconditional aspect to God’s covenant. Certainly, the unconditional overpowers the conditional because there ultimately are never any good works apart from God’s grace which always precedes calls to obedience in Abraham’s case as well as in any similar case of a believing sinner in all of history, but there is also a conditional nature in coming into God’s blessing as well.
In a later epochal horizon, Nehemiah praises the Lord, the God who chose and brought out Abram, gave him the name Abraham and made a covenant with him to give to his offspring the land (9:7–8). In other words, he conflates chapters 15 and 17 and treats them as two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, connecting the land grant of chapter 15 with the change in Abraham’s name in chapter 17, and regards the Abrahamic covenant as having been fulfilled.
The author then goes on to discuss the fact that God initiated the covenant blessings with Abraham and secured them to Abraham unilaterally and even after Abraham’s failures, such as with Hagar, would reiterate his faithfulness to fulfill His promises to Abraham in the following chapter of Genesis 17, but at the same time, it was due to finding Abraham’s “heart faithful before You” (Nehemiah 9:8). Thus, there is a conditional and an unconditional aspect to God’s covenant relationship.
Likwise, in chapter one of 2 Peter, the Apostle writes that God’s
“divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises…”
Then, Peter calls the believers to live out the virtues listed in the following verses because of the above, and in verse 10, he says that this is to “make your call and election sure.” The parallel between God’s covenant blessing of the land to an obedient Israel as found in Nehemiah and God’s promise of spiritual blessings to an obedient Jewish and Gentile Dispersion as found in 2 Peter are therefore both rooted in God’s grace and calling, but they are secured by obedience. As Thomas Schreiner points out,
The priority of grace, however, does not cancel out strenuous moral effort. Believers are to “make every effort” or apply “all diligence” (NASB) in carrying out Peter’s commands. A godly character does not emerge from passivity or lassitude. As Luther says, “They should prove their faith by their good works.”
Therefore, God’s relationship to his people has not changed as He has not changed. He is faithful and his people, oftentimes are unfaithful, when a person thinks about the institutional church or of the entire people of Israel.
Along these lines, a person could also speak of the corresponding eschatological qualities of both books. Derek Kidner is quoted by O. R. Martin when speaking of the book of Jeremiah says,
The city [Jerusalem] would indeed be rebuilt, and we read in Nehemiah 3:1 of the tower of Hananel as situated near the starting-point of that operation, as Nehemiah’s account works its way westward from the northeast corner, turning south at presumably the Corner Gate, eventually to come northwards up the east side, via the Horse Gate (Neh. 3:28) to complete the circuit. But the vision [in Jeremiah] outruns that exercise, in scale and in significance. The measuring line shall go out farther (39), not turning at the Corner Gate; and the places that were once unclean shall be sacred to the Lord (40). Added to these things, the promise that the city would never again be overthrown (40c) is a further sign that we must look beyond ‘the present Jerusalem’ to ‘the Jerusalem above’ (Gal. 4:25–26): the great company of saints and angels which is already our home city, as seen in, e.g., Hebrews 12:22–24; Revelation 21:1–22:5.
Nehemiah certainly reflects a limited fulfillment of God’s covenant, but it does not demonstrate the fullness of the completion of the covenant with Abraham as reiterated in Jeremiah where “the measuring line shall go out farther,” and the city shall never again be overthrown, among other things related to the “land” aspect of God’s covenant with Abraham.
Eschatalogically, the Apostle in 2 Peter speaks of “the day of judgement” in 2:9, and he addresses the concerns of the brethren as to why Christ had not returned by that time in the early church’s history in 2 Peter 3. Actually, in chapter three, he waxes long about the coming judgement and urges his readers to look forward to a new heaven and a new earth in 3:13. At the same time, Peter tells them that they have the abundant riches of the promises of Jesus. They have the “prophetic word confirmed” in 1:19. There is a sense in which they have Jesus, but they do not fully have Him at the same time.
Therefore, there is a classic “already and not yet” aspect to both Nehemiah and 2 Peter in regards to eschatology. Already God is faithful to return Israel to her promised land according to the Abrahamic covenant in Nehemiah, and not yet is the covenant promises fully realized as they one day will be according to the Scriptures. Already do the dispersion addressed in 2 Peter have the riches of the promises of Christ, but not yet have they fully realized the kingdom that is to come when Jesus returns.
This already and not yet disparity is not something that should weigh despairingly on the minds of those to whom Nehemiah and 2 Peter have been addressed. Instead, the people of both were to use this confidence that though the fullness has not yet come, yet the power and the love of God has been revealed in magnificent ways. He cares for His people even in the midst of hardship and affliction. The dispersion that Peter addressed fought with false teachers, and the Jews fought with neighboring enemies, but God has revealed who will win in the end. The chosen people of God’s redemptive history has overcome and will overcome because of His “precious and very great promises.”
The God of the Old Testament is not so different from the God of the New Testament. Salvation and covenant seem to have the same principles at work. God is in the process of making for Himself a redeemed people who, though currently in this world, already possess the riches of His promises in Christ soon to be revealed. God is the God of both testaments and He is sovereignly orchestrating a redemptive historical opus, as it were, composed of various themes brought together as time passes. Nehemiah and 2 Peter are two separate pieces of this bigger puzzle that fit neatly into a predetermined plan.
Bibliography
Carson, D.A. and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2005).
Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988).
Gleason Archer. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. (Moody Press: Chicago, IL, 1994).
Josephus, F. ed. Whiston, W. The works of Josephus: complete and unabridged. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).
MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Student Bible. (Word Publishing: Nashville, TN, 2000).
Martin, D. C. Nehemiah. Eds. C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen, & T. C. Butler, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003)
Martin, O. R. Bound for the Promised Land: The Land Promise in God’s Redemptive Plan. ed. D.A. Carson (England; Downers Grove, IL: Apollos; InterVarsity Press, 2015)
New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).
Schreiner, T. R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003)
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016)
Thompson, Gale. “Elephantine.” Accessed 6 November 2016
http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/elephantine
Leave a Reply