|
|
Like many of his brethren the prophets, Daniel was prepared and raised up as a minister to kings and emperors. At the time that Nebuchadnezzar first carried the Jews captive into Babylon (about 605 B.C.), Daniel was chosen as one of the choicest Jewish youths to be taken to Babylon and trained for service in the king’s court. Because of his righteousness and sensitivity to the promptings of the Spirit, he was greatly favored of God. The Lord blessed him with the gift of interpreting dreams and visions. This endowment soon made him an object of greater attention from the emperor, and he was raised to positions that enabled him to spend his life in service to the kings of the land. He became the Lord’s minister to those rulers. He was made chief of the wise men, chancellor of the equivalent of a national university, ruler of all the Hebrew captives, and, as governor of the province of Babylon, one of the chief rulers in both the Babylonian and Persian Empires. Though at times his life was endangered because of the jealousy of evil men, yet he lived so perfectly that the Lord continually protected and preserved him.
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study the book of Daniel.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual-study students should complete all of this section.)
Most scholars agree that Nebuchadnezzar, as a Babylonian prince, was in command of his father’s troops in 605 B.C. when they soundly defeated the Egyptian forces at Carchemish (see Jeremiah 46:2). This defeat marked the beginning of the end of the Egyptian Empire as a world power and put the known world on notice that it would now have to reckon with Babylon.
Nebuchadnezzar pursued the Egyptians southward and dealt them a worse defeat near Hamath in Syria (see Harry Thomas Frank, Discovering the Biblical World, p. 127), thus securing Syria and Judea for the expanded Babylonian Empire. As seen in Daniel 1:1, this drive resulted in the siege of Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim and in Judah’s being made a vassal to Babylon for the next three years (see 2 Kings 24:1). At that time many of the finest vessels of the temple were taken to Babylon as tribute (see 2 Chronicles 36:7). Selected members of Judah’s upper class, which included Daniel (see 2 Kings 20:14–18; Daniel 6:13), were carried captive to Babylon. Sometime during this campaign, Nebuchadnezzar learned of the death of his father, and within the year he returned to Babylon to be made king (see Jeremiah 25:1). Later he besieged Jerusalem twice more, carrying off additional captives both times, and eventually destroying Jerusalem about 587 B.C. All the evidence suggests that Daniel and his three companions were taken into captivity during the first exile to Babylon (see Daniel 1:6). Daniel lived in Jerusalem at the same time Lehi did, though there is no evidence to suggest that they knew each other.
Shinar was the plain of the lower delta country between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers where they approach the Persian Gulf. It was the ancient land of Chaldea, or Babylonia. (See William Smith, A Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. “Shinar.”)
The word eunuch is “the English form of the Greek word which means bed-keeper. In the strict and proper sense they were the persons who had charge of the bed-chambers in palaces and larger houses. But as the jealous and dissolute temperament of the East required this charge to be in the hands of persons who had been deprived of their virility, the word eunuch came naturally to denote persons in that condition. But as some of these rose to be confidential advisers of their royal masters or mistresses, the word was occasionally employed to denote persons in such a position, without indicating anything of their proper manhood.” (Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. “eunuch.”)
“This word eunuchs signifies officers about or in the palace, whether literally eunuchs or not” (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 4:563).
The term meat referred to the food that graced the king’s table (compare Genesis 1:29). The reasons for Daniel’s refusal to eat the food may have included the following: (1) some of the foods used by the Babylonians were likely among the items forbidden for consumption in the Mosaic law (see Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14); (2) Babylonians, like other heathens, ate beasts that had not been properly drained of blood (see Leviticus 3:17) and thereby violated the Mosaic law; and (3) the heathens consecrated the food of their feasts by offering up part of the food and drink as sacrifices to their gods. Consuming such food would be participating in the worship of false gods. Moreover, food was viewed as contaminated and unclean according to Jewish law when it was prepared by anyone considered unclean, such as the heathens (see Leviticus 7:19–21). Daniel was strictly loyal to the Lord and refused to be involved in any practice associated with anything unclean or idolatrous.
Pulse is such seeds and grains as peas, wheat, barley, and rye. Though eating pulse surely would have contributed to the good health of the Jewish youths, they were also blessed by God for adhering to His laws and thus became more healthy than those who ate the king’s meat.
The Hebrew word for astrologers and magicians is Ahshaphim, which means an enchanter who uses incantations and who practices hidden arts (see Davidson, Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, pp. li–lii). These people were frequently associated with evil spirits (see Acts 8:9–24). Daniel and his brethren were founded in truth and revelation from God and were thus of much greater wisdom and understanding than the king’s magicians and astrologers.
Daniel was among those of the first captivity, and he remained in Babylon with many of the other Jews even after most of them had returned to their homeland to rebuild their temple and nation. He was in Babylon serving various kings through the seventy years of the Jewish captivity (see Jeremiah 25:11; 29:10). Though there is no indication of his age at the time of his captivity, Daniel 1:21 shows that he lived to at least the age of eighty.
Ellis T. Rasmussen gave the following helpful commentary on the king’s dream: “In verse 5 the phrase ‘is gone from me’ should probably read ‘is certain with me,’ as the Persian word azda (‘sure’) is used. Note in verse 9 that the king makes the point that he knows what he dreamt; therefore if the interpreters can tell him the dream, he will know that they know what they are talking about and he will know whether he can have confidence in their interpretation or not!” (An Introduction to the Old Testament and Its Teachings, 2:92; see also Daniel 2:5a.)
|
|
|
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was interpreted by Daniel. |
The response of Daniel and his friends at a time when their lives were in danger because of the king’s sentence on all the wise men illustrates the application of a principle taught by President Harold B. Lee: “By faith in God you can be attuned to the Infinite and by power and wisdom obtained from your Heavenly Father harness the powers of the universe to serve you in your hour of need in the solution of problems too great for your human strength or intelligence” (in Church News, 15 Aug. 1970, p. 2).
Though the king would have given Daniel credit for giving the interpretation of his dream, Daniel made it clear that it was not he, nor any of the wise men or soothsayers, who was able to determine the nature of the dream and its interpretation. Daniel testified that “there is a God in heaven” (Daniel 2:28), and it was by the power of that God that the secret of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was made known. Daniel did not take credit to himself for what the Lord had done for his benefit. To do so would certainly have offended God (see D&C 59:21).
The inspired interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream that Daniel gave made it clear that the fulfillment of the king’s dream would begin in the immediate future. Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar, “Thou art this head of gold” (v. 38). The dream revealed events that would take place over a long span of time. The culmination, however, was to take place in the last days. The Hebrew word that was used, achariyth, means “last or end” (James Strong, “A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible,” in The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, p. 11). This definition, combined with the explanation given by Daniel and the added light of modern-day revelation (see D&C 65:2; 138:44), makes this clear.
President Rudger Clawson elaborated on Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream: “The ... world of today is witness of the fact that the very things which the great image stood for have occurred so far as time has gone. History certifies to the fact that King Nebuchadnezzar was the head of gold. The Medes and Persians, an inferior kingdom to Babylon, were the arms and breast of silver. The Macedonian kingdom, under Alexander the Great, was the belly and thighs of brass; and the Roman kingdom under the Caesars was the legs of iron. For mark you, later on the kingdom, or empire of Rome, was divided. The head of the government in one division was at Rome and the head of the government in the other division was at Constantinople. So these two great divisions represented the legs of iron. Finally, the Roman empire was broken up into smaller kingdoms, represented by the feet and toes of iron and clay.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1930, p. 32).
Elder Orson Pratt, in explaining why the toes were shown as being partly iron and partly clay, said that “the feet and toes were governments more modern to grow out of the iron kingdom [Roman Empire], after it should lose its strength. These are represented by the ten toes or ten kingdoms which should be partly strong and partly broken. They should not have the strength of the legs of iron, but they should be mixed with miry clay, indicating both strength and weakness.” (In Journal of Discourses, 18:337.)
President Spencer W. Kimball further clarified the prophecy with the following explanation:
“Rome would be replaced by a group of nations of Europe represented by the toes of the image.
“With the history of the world delineated in brief, now came the real revelation. Daniel said:
“‘And in the days of these kings [that is, the group of European nations] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed . . .
“This is a revelation concerning the history of the world, when one world power would supersede another until there would be numerous smaller kingdoms to share the control of the earth.
“And it was in the days of these kings that power would not be given to men, but the God of heaven would set up a kingdom—the kingdom of God upon the earth, which should never be destroyed nor left to other people.
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored in 1830 after numerous revelations from the divine source; and this is the kingdom, set up by the God of heaven, that would never be destroyed nor superseded, and the stone cut out of the mountain without hands that would become a great mountain and would fill the whole earth.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1976, p. 10.)
Section 65 of the Doctrine and Covenants tells of the fulfillment of the rest of Daniel’s prophecy. The Prophet Joseph Smith prayed that the ecclesiastical kingdom of God, which was established on the earth in his day, might roll forth that the future kingdom of heaven might come.
“During the millennium the kingdom of God will continue on earth, but in that day it will be both an ecclesiastical and a political kingdom. That is, the Church (which is the kingdom) will have the rule and government of the world given to it.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 416.)
That millennial kingdom can also be properly referred to as the kingdom of heaven, as Joseph Smith did in his inspired prayer recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 65. The establishment of that kingdom is what the Lord taught the Saints to pray for in the Lord’s Prayer when He said, “Thy kingdom come” (Matthew 6:10; see also Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:230). The coming forth of the kingdom on the earth is what Daniel saw when the stone rolled forth and smote the image, eventually filling the whole earth.
President Brigham Young taught: “The Lord God Almighty has set up a kingdom that will sway the sceptre of power and authority over all the kingdoms of the world, and will never be destroyed, it is the kingdom that Daniel saw and wrote of. It may be considered treason to say that the kingdom which that Prophet foretold is actually set up; that we cannot help, but we know it is so, and call upon the nations to believe our testimony. The kingdom will continue to increase, to grow, to spread and prosper more and more. Every time its enemies undertake to overthrow it, it will become more extensive and powerful; instead of its decreasing, it will continue to increase, it will spread the more, become more wonderful and conspicuous to the nations, until it fills the whole earth.” (In Journal of Discourses, 1:202–3.)
President Spencer W. Kimball summarized the qualities that Daniel possessed and the blessings his obedience to God brought him: “The gospel was Daniel’s life. . . . In the king’s court, he could be little criticized, but even for a ruler he would not drink the king’s wine nor gorge himself with meat and rich foods. His moderation and his purity of faith brought him health and wisdom and knowledge and skill and understanding, and his faith linked him closely to his Father in heaven, and revelations came to him as often as required. His revealing of the dreams of the king and the interpretations thereof brought him honor and acclaim and gifts and high position such as many men would sell their souls to get.” (In Conference Report, Mexico and Central America Area Conference 1972, p. 31.)
Daniel did not stand alone as an exemplary young man. His three companions demonstrated the same unswerving loyalty and devotion to God. Of them Elder Spencer W. Kimball said: “We remind ourselves of the integrity of the three Hebrews, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who like Daniel defied men and rulers, to be true to themselves and to keep faith with their faith. They were required by decree of the emperor to kneel down and worship a monumental image of gold which the king had set up. In the face of losing caste, of losing position, of angering the king, they faced the fiery furnace rather than to fail and deny their God. The cunningly devised scheme worked as the vicious planners expected. The dedication must have been exciting with the people from far and near attending. Had there ever been such an image? such a spectacle? Ninety feet of gold in the form of a man—what could be more scintillating, more sparkling? There must have been almost countless people milling in the streets and in the area where the gigantic image stood when the herald announced the procedure and the decree that all must kneel at the sound of the music and all must worship the image. Neither the cunning of the deceivers, the conspiring, cunning tricksters, nor the fear of the king and what he could do to them, dissuaded the three courageous young men from their true path of rightness. When the prearranged sounds of the cornet, flute, harp and other instruments reverberated through the area and the masses of men and women everywhere filled their homes and the streets with kneeling worshippers of the huge golden image, three men refused to insult their true God. They prayed to God, and when confronted by the raging and furious emperor king, they courageously answered in the face of what could be certain death: [Daniel 3:17–18.]” (Integrity, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [25 Feb. 1964], p. 18.)
To heat the furnace “seven times more than it was wont to be” (Daniel 3:19) is presumed to be an idiomatic way of saying that the furnace was to be heated much hotter than usual—to be heated as hot as it could be heated (see Clarke, Commentary, 4:578). “If the three were brought up to the furnace, it must have had a mouth above, through which the victims could be cast into it. When heated to an ordinary degree, this could be done without danger to the men who performed this service; but in the present case the heat of the fire was so great, that the servants themselves perished by it.” (C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 9:3:130.)
The king apparently viewed the events in the furnace through an opening at the bottom (see D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 692).
|
|
|
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego were placed in a fiery furnace. |
That Nebuchadnezzar recognized Daniel’s ability to receive revelation from God is clear from the events associated with Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s previous dream (see Daniel 2:46–47). The heathens believed that “the revelation of supernatural secrets belonged to the gods, and that the man who had this power must possess the spirit of the gods” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 9:3:147). Daniel’s spiritual powers, however, did not necessarily convert Nebuchadnezzar from his polytheistic beliefs or his belief in the supreme Babylonian god Bel. By acknowledging Daniel’s spiritual abilities, Nebuchadnezzar was not acknowledging Jehovah as the only or even the supreme god.
The word astonied is an archaic word that means “bewildered” or “filled with consternation or dismay.” Daniel was troubled because he knew that the message of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was not good. He knew he must announce to Nebuchadnezzar the judgments of God to come upon him. Nebuchadnezzar noticed Daniel’s concern and realized that Daniel had the interpretation. “He asks him, with friendly address, to tell him it without reserve. Daniel then communicates it in words of affectionate interest for the welfare of the king. The words, let the dream be to thine enemies, etc., do not mean: it is a dream, a prophecy, such as the enemies of the king might ungraciously wish (Klief.), but: may the dream with its interpretation be to thine enemies, may it be fulfilled to them or refer to them.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 9:3:154.)
Daniel counseled the king to reform his life, to repent of his sins, and to show greater mercy to the poor. The implication of Daniel’s statement is that if Nebuchadnezzar would do as he was counseled, he might receive divine favor and avert the threatened punishment, thus maintaining his prosperity of life. Mercy to the poor was mentioned as a prerequisite to obtaining forgiveness of sin. It is one of the most sincere evidences of repentance and submission to the Lord’s will. (Compare James 1:27.)
That Nebuchadnezzar praised and glorified God after his reason was restored to him indicates that he recognized his experience as a just punishment for his pride. It does not necessarily follow, however, that this experience caused his sincere repentance or conversion to the God of Daniel. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that Daniel had even that much influence on a man steeped in idolatry and heathen superstitions.
Many scholars have questioned the validity of the statement that Belshazzar was a king in Babylon because “Belshazzar never reigned as sole king, and is never designated as king (sharru) in the cuneiform inscriptions. Furthermore, it is maintained that there is no evidence to show that Belshazzar ever ruled upon the throne as a subordinate to Nabonidus his father. In reply to these charges we may note, first of all, that the Aramaic word malka (‘king’) need not have the connotation of monarch or sole king (see R. D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, 1917, pp. 83–95). Furthermore, one of the cuneiform documents expressly states that Nabonidus entrusted the kingship to Belshazzar. . . . In all probability there was a coregency between Nabonidus and Belshazzar in which Belshazzar occupied a subordinate position. Since, however, he was the man upon the throne with whom Israel had to do, he is designated king in the book of Daniel. No valid objection can be raised against this usage.” (Guthrie and Motyer, New Bible Commentary, p. 694.)
When the Babylonians overthrew Jerusalem, they “carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord” (2 Kings 24:13). As Keil and Delitzsch noted, during the feast the Babylonians “drank out of the holy vessels of the temple of the God of Israel to glorify . . . their heathen gods in songs of praise. In doing this they did not only place ‘Jehovah on a perfect level with their gods’ (Havernick), but raised them above the Lord of heaven, as Daniel (ver. 23) charged the king. The carrying away of the temple vessels to Babylon and placing them in the temple of Bel was a sign of the defeat of the God to whom these vessels were consecrated; . . . the use of these vessels in the drinking of wine at a festival, amid the singing of songs in praise of the gods, was accordingly a celebrating of these gods as victorious over the God of Israel.” (Commentary, 9:3:180.)
|
|
|
Vessels of the temple: altar of incense, golden candlestick, table of shewbread, and ark of the covenant |
The great fear that came upon the king is described in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible as: “His limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together” (Daniel 5:6).
The Hebrew word that is translated “third ruler” means “one of three” (Guthrie and Motyer, New Bible Commentary, p. 694). The promise was that the interpreter of the writing would be made third in authority in the kingdom next to Nabonidus and Belshazzar. The scarlet (sometimes purple) clothing and the chain of gold mentioned in Daniel 5:7 were symbols of rank worn by high officials.
Those who function under the influence of the Spirit of God have increased capabilities, not because of their own qualifications, but because of the power of God which they are privileged to use. They are servants in the Lord’s hands who are to bless others and carry out the Lord’s will. Daniel knew this and neither deserved nor sought for earthly rewards for his role as an instrument in the hands of God.
The handwriting on the wall indicated not only that the Babylonian kingdom would be overthrown but also the means by which it would be overthrown: “MENE, ‘numbered’, i.e. God has numbered . . . the days of the kingdom; TEKEL, a ‘shekel’, used both as a coin and as a weight, indicated that Belshazzar was weighed (in the balances) and found deficient; PERES, ‘division’, your kingdom is divided (peres) and given to the Medes and Persians (paras). The word paras would seem to point out that the Persians were the dominant power to whom Babylon would fall. When Daniel read the writing he read and PARSIN (v. 25), but in giving the interpretation he employed the form PERES (v. 28). . . . We have thus a play upon words in which the basic idea of division is linked with the name of the conqueror.” (Guthrie and Motyer, New Bible Commentary, p. 694.)
Although Belshazzar did not believe that Daniel’s God was the only true God, it is likely that he, like other heathens, believed in the gods and in revelations from God. He must have been deeply impressed with Daniel’s ability to interpret the writing on the wall because he rewarded him handsomely. Keil and Delitzsch suggested another possible reason: “Belshazzar perhaps scarcely believed the threatened judgment from God to be so near as it actually was . . . and perhaps . . . he hoped to be able, by conferring honour upon Daniel, to appease the wrath of God” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 9:3:191).
|
|
|
Cyrus diverted the water and marched his soldiers under the wall of Babylon. |
Babylon was surrounded by a massive wall over one hundred feet thick and three hundred feet high (see Enrichment G). To breach such a wall, even with constant sieging, would take months, and yet there is no hint in Daniel’s record that the city was under siege at this time. Could a city of Babylon’s size and fortifications be taken in one night?
Historical sources other than the Bible indicate that that is exactly what happened, supporting Daniel’s record exactly. The ancient Greek historian, Herodotus, recorded that “Cyrus had previously caused the Pallacopas, a canal which ran west of the city, and carried off the superfluous water of the Euphrates into the lake of Nitocris, to be cleared out, in order to turn the river into it; which, by this means, was rendered so shallow that his soldiers were able to penetrate along its bed into the city.” (In Samuel Fallows, ed., The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary, s.v. “Babylon,” p. 207.)
Thus the Persians marched under the massive walls. Harry Thomas Frank discussed the reasons why the city, even then, surrendered so easily: “Cyrus’ orders preceded him to the city. No revenge was to be taken. The city was to have its normal life restored as quickly as possible. The gods which Nabonidus had taken from the equally well-treated provincial cities were to be restored at once. There was, above all, to be no terrorizing of the population. Indeed, Cyrus intended to change some of the policies of Nabonidus which had made him objectionable to his subjects. One can imagine the reception Cyrus received when he made his appearance in the capital a few weeks after its capture. He was not a conqueror. He was a liberator! And far from installing a foreign rule over the people, Cyrus personally took the role of Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, in the New Year Festival, thereby claiming for himself and his heirs the right to rule the Babylonian Empire by divine designation.” (Discovering the Biblical World, p. 140.)
|
|
|
Canaan under Persian rule |
Keil and Delitzsch commented on this issue: “The successor [to Belshazzar] would be inclined toward its recognition [Daniel’s promotion] by the reflection, that by Daniel’s interpretation of the mysterious writing from God the putting of Belshazzar to death appeared to have a higher sanction, presenting itself as if it were something determined in the councils of the gods, whereby the successor might claim before the people that his usurpation of the throne was rendered legitimate. Such a reflection might move him to confirm Daniel’s elevation to the office to which Belshazzar had raised him.” (Commentary, 9:3:190–91.)
Though the above may be true, Daniel’s great capacity should not be discounted. A wise ruler would recognize and use a man of Daniel’s stature.
Those who are righteous do not fear other people. Their only desire is to serve and honor God. With the same faith that his brethren Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego had shown in refusing to bow down to the idol, Daniel refused to follow the decree that condemned petitions to any god but the king. “This unalterable law of the Medes and Persians would have been terrifying to any man, but the faithful Daniel did not flinch. Was there any question what he should do? He could save his life by abandoning his prayers to the Living God. What was he to do? A man of integrity could not fail. Daniel was the soul of integrity.” (Kimball, Integrity, p. 17.)
Solomon, in his dedicatory prayer of the temple in Jerusalem, referred to the people’s praying “toward the city which thou hast chosen, and toward the house that I have built for thy name” (1 Kings 8:44). The Prophet Joseph Smith once counseled the Twelve Apostles to “make yourselves acquainted with those men who like Daniel pray three times a day toward the House of the Lord” (History of the Church, 3:391). And President Wilford Woodruff, in the dedicatory prayer on the Salt Lake Temple, said: “Heavenly Father, when thy people shall not have the opportunity of entering this holy house to offer their supplications unto thee, and they are oppressed and in trouble, surrounded by difficulties or assailed by temptation, and shall turn their faces towards this thy holy house and ask thee for deliverance, for help, for thy power to be extended in their behalf, we beseech thee to look down from thy holy habitation in mercy and tender compassion upon them, and listen to their cries.” (In James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord, p. 142; emphasis added.)
This is not to suggest that the direction in which one faces when one prays has mystical significance, but, rather, that it is an attitude of spiritual “facing.” To face the temple, which is the temporal representation of the House of God, suggests that one turns one’s heart to the Lord and the covenants made in the temples to be more like Him. President Woodruff clarified this point in what he said next: “Or when the children of thy people, in years to come, shall be separated, through any cause, from this place, and their hearts shall turn in remembrance of thy promises to this holy Temple, and they shall cry unto thee from the depths of their affliction and sorrow to extend relief and deliverance to them, we humbly entreat thee to turn thine ear in mercy to them; hearken to their cries, and grant unto them the blessings for which they ask.” (In Talmage, House of the Lord, p. 142; emphasis added.)
The term or ever, as used in Daniel 6:24, means “before.” Some have attacked the cruelty of condemning the women and children, too. To an absolute monarch, however, it probably seemed the logical thing to do, for out of these families might come insurrection in the future. The lesson must be severe enough to warn any others who might be jealous of the king’s favorite and most valuable servant. An absolute monarch would likely feel that any other course would slowly cause him to lose power.
“He had served five kings: Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus. Few courtiers have had so long a reign, served so many masters without flattering any, been more successful in their management of public affairs, been so useful to the states where they were in office, or have been more owned of God, or have left such an example to posterity.” (Clarke, Commentary, 4:590.)
Like chapter 2, chapter 7 gives a pictorial representation of history: There are four successive empires, and then the kingdom of God is established. Chapter 7, however, seems to relate more to the establishment of the ecclesiastical aspects of the kingdom, whereas chapter 2 deals more with the political aspects of the kingdom of God.
The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the following about Daniel’s vision of the beasts:
“You there see that the beasts are spoken of to represent the kingdoms of the world, the inhabitants whereof were beastly and abominable characters; they were murderers, corrupt, carnivorous, and brutal in their dispositions. The lion, the bear, the leopard, and the ten-horned beast represented the kingdoms of the world, says Daniel. . . .
“. . . The prophets do not declare that they saw a beast or beasts, but that they saw the image or figure of a beast. Daniel did not see an actual bear or a lion, but the images or figures of those beasts. The translation should have been rendered ‘image’ instead of ‘beast,’ in every instance where beasts are mentioned by the prophets. . . . When the prophets speak of seeing beasts in their visions, they mean that they saw the images, they being types to represent certain things. At the same time they received the interpretation as to what those images or types were designed to represent.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 289, 291.)
See the statement by the Prophet Joseph Smith quoted in Notes and Commentary on Ezekiel 1:15–21.
As mentioned in Daniel 7:17, the four beasts represented “four kings [or kingdoms] which shall arise out of the earth.” The first, which was like a lion with eagles’ wings, represented the Babylonian kingdom under Nebuchadnezzar. The lion and eagle are both supreme among beasts of their class. The head of gold in the dream of chapter 2 can be similarly compared. “What the gold is among metals and the head among the members of the body, that the lion is among beasts and the eagle among birds” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 9:3:223). The plucking of feathers (see Daniel 7:4) seems to have represented a deprivation of power to fly or the power to dominate and conquer. The change that gave it a man’s heart is evidently a reference to the humanizing effect of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness (see Daniel 4:34–37).
The second beast (see Daniel 7:2) represented the Median-Persian Empire, as did the breast and arms of silver in the image of chapter 2. The bear was considered next to the lion as the strongest among animals by the people of the ancient Middle East. The raising up on one side could represent the raising of the forefeet of the bear (standing on its hind feet) as when it goes after prey. “The Medo-Persian bear, as such, has . . . two sides: the one, the Median side, is at rest after the efforts made for the erection of the world-kingdom; but the other, the Persian side, raises itself up, and then becomes not only higher than the first, but also is prepared for new rapine.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 9:3:225.) The ribs held between the bear’s teeth and its devouring “much flesh” (Daniel 7:5) signify the ferocity with which its dominion would be exerted.
The third kingdom corresponded to the Greek Empire of Alexander the Great. Wings signify power to move and extend influence. Heads signify governing power or the seat of government. The Grecian kingdom was extended greatly under Alexander and had power over much of the earth.
The fourth beast was not likened to an animal. It was, however, very strong and dreadful and broke into pieces the remains of the former kingdoms. It represented the Roman Empire and the forces of evil that were manifest through that empire. The ten horns are the kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was afterwards divided. They are similar to the ten toes of the great image described in Daniel 2. (See also Daniel 7:23–24.)
Though each of these beasts may be said to represent the worldly kingdoms mentioned, the representation probably was not just of their political dominion, but also of the evils upheld and perpetrated upon the world by their rule. The vision should not be thought of as wholly political, either, particularly in view of the “little horn” (v. 8). This symbol cannot be positively identified with any specific individual or kingdom of the world, but seems to be similar to the “beast [rising] out of the sea” that John saw (Revelation 13:1), which also made “war with the saints” (Revelation 13:7) as did this form (see Daniel 7:21–22, 25). The little horn represented a notable anti-Christ power that was to be raised up after the time of the Roman Empire, and it was to be different from the other ten kingdoms mentioned after the Roman kingdom. Daniel said that this horn would have power to make war with and hinder the Saints until the time of Christ’s Second Coming (see Daniel 7:20–27).
Concerning this great evil power and the beast from which it arose, Sidney B. Sperry said:
“May I suggest that the last beast which Daniel saw, which was so terrible and which had a mouth speaking great things, (7:7, 8) is none other than the ‘great and abominable church’ of our modern scriptures. Let me make my point clear. Keep in mind that Daniel saw that ‘the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it was given to be burned with fire.’ (7:11) In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith concerning the destructive forces to be unleashed prior to the Second Advent, the Lord explains: [D&C 88:94].
“This evil power is doubtless the same one spoken of in the twenty-ninth section of the Doctrine and Covenants and testified to by Ezekiel the prophet: [D&C 29:21; compare Ezekiel 38:14–23].
“The Book of Mormon also speaks at length concerning this evil force in the world that shall meet destruction. Notice a few of the words of Nephi: [1 Nephi 22:13–18].
“May I emphasize that even if the ‘great and abominable church’ is correctly identified as the power which is represented by Daniel’s great beast, we do not at present fully comprehend the ramifications of it or the range of dominion it will have prior to its destruction.” (The Voice of Israel’s Prophets, pp. 260–61.)
Daniel’s vision continued until he saw “thrones . . . cast down” (Daniel 7:9), that is, until the worldly governments lost their dominion (see vv. 12, 14, 18, 27). He then saw the establishment of the kingdom of heaven with Christ at its head. This kingdom would rule “all people, nations, and languages” forever (v. 14). Latter-day revelation teaches that eventually all worldly kingdoms will come to an end in preparation for the millennial Zion (see D&C 87:6). This seems to be what Daniel saw.
In an address to the Twelve Apostles, the Prophet Joseph Smith explained the name “Ancient of Days”: “Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.” (Teachings, p. 157.)
President Joseph Fielding Smith explained the teachings of Daniel about the great priesthood gathering to be held at Adam-ondi-Ahman: “Daniel speaks of the coming of Christ, and that day is near at hand. There will be a great gathering in the Valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman; there will be a great council held. The Ancient of Days, who is Adam, will sit. The judgment—not the final judgment—will be held, where the righteous who have held keys will make their reports and deliver up their keys and ministry. Christ will come, and Adam will make his report. At this council Christ will be received and acknowledged as the rightful ruler of the earth. Satan will be replaced. Following this event every government in the world . . . will have to become part of the government of God. Then righteous rule will be established. The earth will be cleansed; the wicked will be destroyed; and the reign of peace will be ushered in.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:13–14; see also D&C 78:15–16; 107:53–57; 116; Smith, Teachings, pp. 122, 158.)
|
|
|
Adam-ondi-Ahman in Missouri |
In relating a personal experience, Elder LeGrand Richards taught of the importance of the work the Saints are doing in this dispensation and of its relationship to the eventual rule of Christ upon the earth:
“When I was president of the Southern States Mission, one of our missionaries preached on that dream of Nebuchadnezzar in one of our meetings where we had some investigators, and I stood at the door to greet them as they went out. A man came up and introduced himself as a minister, and he said, ‘You don’t mean to tell me that you think that the Mormon Church is that kingdom, do you?’
“And I said, ‘Yes, sir, why not?’
“He said, ‘It couldn’t be.’
“I said, ‘Why couldn’t it?’
“He said, ‘You can’t have a kingdom without a king, and you don’t have a king, so you don’t have a kingdom.’
“‘Oh,’ I said, ‘my friend, you didn’t read far enough. You just read the seventh chapter of Daniel, where Daniel saw one like the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, “and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him.” (Dan. 7:14.)
“‘Now,’ I said, ‘my friend, tell me how can the kingdom be given to him when he comes in the clouds of heaven if there is no kingdom prepared for him? That is what we Latter-day Saints are doing.’” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1975, pp. 76–77; or Ensign, Nov. 1975, p. 51.)
Daniel taught that the Saints will possess the kingdom after the Lord returns to take His rightful place at the head of that kingdom. It is necessary, however, for the Saints to prepare themselves to take possession of the kingdom.
Elder Daniel H. Wells indicated what the Saints must do to receive the kingdom: “I have often been asked the question, ‘When will the kingdom be given into the hands of the Saints of the most high God;’ and I have always answered it in this way: just so soon as the Lord finds that He has a people upon the earth who will uphold and sustain that kingdom, who shall be found capable of maintaining its interests and of extending its influence upon the earth. When he finds that he has such a people, a people who will stand firm and faithful to him, a people that will not turn it over into the lap of the devil, then, and not until then, will he give ‘the kingdom’ into the hands of the Saints of the most high, in its power and influence when it shall fill the whole earth. . . . It depends, in a great measure, upon the people themselves, as to how soon the kingdom spoken of by Daniel shall be given into the hands of the Saints of God. When we shall prove ourselves faithful in every emergency that may arise, and capable to contend and grapple with every difficulty that threatens our peace and welfare, and to overcome every obstacle that may tend to impede the progress of the Church and kingdom of God upon the earth, then our heavenly Father will have confidence in us, and then he will be able to trust us.” (In Journal of Discourses, 23:305.)
Though much of what Daniel saw in this vision is now history, it is not part of the Old Testament. Most of what he recorded in this chapter was fulfilled between 500 B.C. and the time of Christ, a period with few Old Testament writings describing it. This history is summarized in Enrichment K.
The vision in Daniel 8 focuses on the second and third empires spoken of in Daniel 7. The two-horned ram symbolized the Median-Persian Empire, and the horns (Daniel 8:3) represented the kings of Media and Persia (see verse 20). The one horn which came up last and was higher than the other represented the Persians, who finally dominated the alliance and assumed power over the Medians. The goat that came and “smote the ram, . . . brake his two horns . . . [and] cast him down to the ground” (v. 7) signified Alexander the Great and his Greek Empire. (The word choler used in verse 7 means “anger” or “wrath.”) Alexander himself fit the description of the “great horn” (verse 21). At age thirty-two, Alexander died in the height of his power. “When he was strong, the great horn was broken” (v. 8). After he died, his four chief generals carved up the empire, and they seem to be the four notable horns that came up instead of the one (see vv. 8, 22). The “little horn” (v. 9) that came from one of them has generally been interpreted to represent Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), who ruled Syria 175–164 B.C. He persecuted the Jews bitterly, declaring observance of the Mosaic law to be a capital offense. (See Enrichment K.) George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl wrote: “That this ‘little horn’ represents Antiochus Epiphanes is a view entertained by most ancient writers, but this does not exclude the probability that the ‘great and abominable power’ previously referred to, and which is the ‘church of the devil’ is pointed to by the Prophet as necessary to the complete fulfillment of his prediction. What Antiochus was to the Jews during the time of the Maccabees, the ‘church of the devil’ has been to the ‘Church of Christ’ in all ages.” (Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, p. 13.)
Though Antiochus IV may fit the conditions described in the prophecy, he seems to have been a type of those who function through the power of Satan and seek to “cast down” the “stars of heaven” (the children of God—see Job 38:7; Isaiah 14:13; Revelation 12:4) and seek to “magnify” themselves against the “Prince of princes” (Daniel 8:25), who is Christ. Antiochus IV took away the daily sacrifice of the temple and cast down the place of the Lord’s sanctuary (see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 12, chap. 5, par. 4). Similar events occurred during the Roman era after the coming of Christ. Elder Parley P. Pratt: “Now, in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgression of the Jewish nation was come to the full, the Roman power destroyed the Jewish nation, took Jerusalem, caused the daily sacrifice to cease, and not only that but afterwards destroyed the mighty and holy people, that is, the apostles and primitive Christians, who were slain by the authorities of Rome” (A Voice of Warning, p. 16; see also the discussion of other aspects of the ram-goat prophecy found there).
That this prophecy refers to more than just the time up through the Maccabean period is also indicated by two phrases in Daniel 8:19. The phrase “in the last end of the indignation” means “in the latter period of indignation, or in the last days” (Daniel 8:19a). The phrase in verse 26, “it shall be for many days,” means “pertains to many days hereafter” (Daniel 8:26a).
The messenger sent to Daniel was the ancient prophet Noah. The Prophet Joseph Smith explained the relationship that Noah has to the human family and thus gave great insight into why he was directly associated with events on the earth after his mortal ministry: “The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as in Gen. i:26, 27, 28. He had dominion given him over every living creature. He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel; he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven.” (History of the Church, 3:385–86.)
|
|
|
Noah, as Gabriel, appeared to Mary. |
Sperry gave the following insight to Daniel’s prayer:
“It appears that sometime during the first year of Darius the Mede, Daniel was meditating over the Scriptures, more particularly those writings of Jeremiah having to do with the period of the Babylonian Captivity. He was especially concerned with the time of completion of the seventy years of exile predicted by Jeremiah, (Jer. 25:11, 12; 29:10) and the restoration of his people to their own land. A careful study of 2 Chronicles 36:21–23; Ezra 1:1 ff., the passages in Jeremiah, and Daniel 9:1, 2 would seem to lead inevitably to the conclusion that Daniel felt that the seventy years of his people’s captivity was over and that they should be restored. The prophet probably reasoned as follows: Babylon, the power that had brought about the captivity is now fallen, and Persia is in the first year of its rule. (539 B.C.) It is now seventy years or nearly so since I and my family, not to mention many other Jews, were taken into captivity. (609/608 B.C.) What did Jeremiah mean by seventy years of desolation and the punishment of the king of Babylon? (Jer. 25:11, 12) In view of the fact that my people have not yet been restored, I shall inquire of the Lord and confess my people’s sins.
“The prophet then earnestly besought the Lord ‘by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.’ (9:3) He confessed the sins of his people and the justice of God in punishing them, but called upon Him to set His face toward Jerusalem and remember His people.” (Voice of Israel’s Prophets, pp. 265–66.)
As Daniel prayed, Gabriel appeared to him, talked with him, and gave him understanding of the Lord’s designs concerning His people.
The Hebrew word that is commonly translated weeks would more properly be translated sevens. It means a period divided into sevens. The phrase “seventy weeks” thus refers to seventy periods of sevens. These periods of seven could be days, weeks, months, years, or even periods of unspecified duration. Because of this variation, it is difficult to tie Gabriel’s explanation to specific historical time periods, but many attempts have been made to do that, resulting in several differing interpretations of the passage. Sperry called these verses “one of the most difficult passages in all of the Old Testament” (Voice of Israel’s Prophets, p. 266).
Though the time periods mentioned are difficult to identify, the context and several phrases in the passage indicate that the passage has to do with a period in which the salvation of Daniel’s people is to be accomplished. Daniel 9:24 is undoubtedly a reference to the coming of Christ and His Atonement, by which forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to God through repentance would be made possible. By completing the mission His Father sent Him to accomplish, Christ fulfilled the law and the words of the prophets concerning His coming, and thus did He “seal up [make sure] the vision and prophecy” (v. 24). Verse 25 refers to the time between the return of the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah. Verse 26 makes reference to the Messiah being “cut off, but not for himself,” which seems to be an allusion to His Crucifixion. The rest of the chapter describes the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and parallels very closely the message of Matthew 24:15 and Joseph Smith’s inspired revision of that verse (see JS—M 1:12). The reference to confirming the covenant for one week (see Daniel 9:27), however, has not been satisfactorily explained and may make problematic the explanation given above.
Daniel tried to describe the glory and majesty of the Lord. His description is very much like that given by other prophets in similar circumstances. Compare this passage with Ezekiel 1:26–28; Revelation 1:13–15; D&C 110:2–3.
Being in the presence of the Lord drained Daniel of his strength. Other prophets have also had similar experiences (compare Moses 1:9–10; JS—H 1:20).
Previous reference has been made to a visitation of Gabriel (Noah) to Daniel (see Notes and Commentary on Daniel 8:16). This chapter refers to Michael, who is Adam (see Smith, Teachings, p. 157).
That Adam came to assist the messenger in contending with the prince of the kingdom of Persia suggests that the prince was not a mortal leader in Persia but was the leader of the evil forces that supported the unrighteous dominion of the kingdoms of the world. If that reasoning is correct, then Satan or one of his host is the prince spoken of. Other scriptural passages record instances of Adam’s intervening to support and sustain righteous individuals in contention with Satan (see Jude 1:9; D&C 128:20).
The messenger said that he had come to make Daniel understand what would befall his people “in the latter days.” He also said that the vision was “for many days” (Daniel 10:14). The content of the next two chapters indicates that what was given to Daniel was not an account of the latter days only but was also an account of things from Daniel’s time extending far into the future, including the latter days.
It is clear from the sketchy way in which the prophecy deals with the events of the time period covered in this chapter that Daniel’s intention was not to emphasize the history but only to give it as a background in order to indicate its effects upon the Lord’s people. As Keil and Delitzsch wrote: “The prophecy does not furnish a prediction of the historical wars of the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, but an ideal description of the war of the kings of the north and the south in its general outlines, whereby, it is true, diverse special elements of the prophetical announcement have historically been fulfilled, but the historical reality does not correspond with the contents of the prophecy in anything like an exhaustive manner” (Commentary, 9:3:450).
The lack of direct correspondence between the chapter and history seems to indicate that Daniel did not intend to present a detailed chronology of future events but rather to give an overview of some of the main events that would influence the Lord’s people. The following statement suggests that some of the events prophesied of in this chapter may have been given as indicators of the nature of the conflict between the kingdoms of the world and the kingdom of God. That is, they were types of future events: “By the war of these two kingdoms [the Ptolemaic and Seleucid] for the sovereignty, not merely were the covenant land and the covenant people brought in general into a sorrowful condition, but they also were the special object of a war which typically characterizes and portrays the relation of the world-kingdom to the kingdom of God. This war arose under the Seleucidan Antiochus Epiphanes to such a height, that it formed a prelude of the war of the time of the end. The undertaking of this king to root out the worship of the living God and destroy the Jewish religion, shows in type the great war which the world-power in the last phases of its development shall undertake against the kingdom of God.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 9:3:426–27.)
|
|
|
Persia fell to Alexander the Great. |
Several things Daniel mentioned seem to be dualistic, having application to more than one period of time. The “abomination that maketh desolate” in Daniel 11:31 is one example of this dualism. Though this verse could quite properly be interpreted to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes (which has been the conclusion of many scholars), the “abomination of desolation” was also mentioned by the Lord in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in A.D. 70 (see JS—M 1:12). It has also been applied to destructions which are still in the future (see JS—M 1:32).
Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote about the abomination of desolation mentioned by Daniel:
“These conditions of desolation, born of abomination and wickedness, were to occur twice in fulfilment of Daniel’s words. The first was to be when the Roman legions under Titus, in 70 A.D. laid siege to Jerusalem, destroying and scattering the people, leaving not one stone upon another in the desecrated temple, and spreading such terror and devastation as has seldom if ever been equalled on earth. . . .
“Then, speaking of the last days, . . . our Lord said: ‘And again shall the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, be fulfilled.’ ([JS—M] 1:31–32.) That is: Jerusalem again will be under siege. . . . It will be during this siege that Christ will come, the wicked will be destroyed, and the millennial era commenced.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 12.)
It is possible that in the prophetic dualism Daniel showed near-future and far-future events with the same image. Much in Daniel 11 suggests the future battle of Armageddon (see Enrichment I), but there are also details that seem related to the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes. They could also relate to the fall of Judah to Rome.
Some have used Daniel 12:1, which says that this would be a time of trouble such as had never before been seen, to mean the battle of Armageddon. The language of this verse is reminiscent of Joel 2:2 and Revelation 16:18, which are prophecies of Armageddon. The Savior, however, specifically applied Daniel 12:1 to the fall of Judah in A.D. 70 (see JS—M 1:18). Further, the Doctrine and Covenants describes Michael as leading the armies of God after the Millennium (see D&C 88:110–16). Others have noted that the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus was the most deliberate and savage of their history to that point. Which is correct? Were these terrible times fulfilled in 167 B.C. or A.D. 70, or are they yet future, either before the Millennium in Armageddon or afterwards? Given the dualistic nature of prophecy in the Old Testament, it is very possible that all four answers are correct.
Concerning the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy about an increase of knowledge, President Spencer W. Kimball observed: “Nineteenth century theologians thought they saw the fulfillment of these predictions in the coming of the steam engine, the sewing machine, the motor car. What they saw was but the dim beginnings of the most spectacular increase of knowledge since men first dwelt upon the earth. Could they emerge from their graves today and behold a giant rocket in flight, a man-made satellite in orbit, and moving pictures of the moon or Mars appearing on a TV set, a famous choir in South Dakota singing to much of the earth through the satellite off in space, they would recognize in all these and numerous other space-age marvels a fulfillment far beyond their expectations but nonetheless valid for all of that.” (Talk given at the dedication of the Language Training Mission [Provo, Utah, 27 Sept. 1976], p. 5.)
The interpretation of the time periods mentioned in these verses has not been revealed by the Lord as yet. Numerous calculations and formulas have been put forward, each in their turn to be proven wrong.
William Miller, a founder of the Adventist movement, predicted Christ’s coming in 1844, which prediction Joseph Smith declared to be false (see Smith, Teachings, pp. 340–41). Miller’s calculations came from an interpretation of this passage in Daniel. Time and again people have thought they had the key and enticed others to believe, only to reap disappointment. Even today there are those who predict earthquakes and great calamities occurring on specific dates, based on this passage in Daniel, and sadly, they still entice others to believe and follow.
The Prophet Joseph Smith said that if the Lord did not give the key for interpreting a symbol or image He employed, He would not hold His children responsible for it (see Notes and Commentary on Ezekiel 1:15–21). For reasons not at present known, the Lord has not revealed the key for interpreting this passage, and, until He does so, speculation and calculation are pointless.
What does the life of Daniel suggest about the ability of a Saint to serve in public office and still not compromise gospel standards? Could he have survived without divine intervention? When does God intervene? What are the conditions of intervention? Can He intervene without the unusual circumstances such as were associated with His intervention for Daniel?
What lessons about adhering to one’s standards can be learned from the experience of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego recorded in Daniel 3? Note especially verses 28–29. How might adhering to your standards affect those persons who do not feel as you do? Read verses 25–28 and consider Daniel’s experience related in chapter 6. Then ask yourself these questions.
A great blessing from the Lord came to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego because of their loyalty to God. They had supported the Lord and He then supported them in their time of need. Elder Spencer W. Kimball spoke of their integrity:
“Bound securely in their inflammable clothes, they were consigned to the fiery death which no mere man could survive, but on the morning the king Nebuchadnezzar himself in astonishment and awe found four personages in the furnace as he said: [Daniel 3:25.] At the command of the king, they came forth unburned, unhurt, not even a hair of their heads singed and no smell of fire on their clothes. INTEGRITY! The promises of eternal life from God supersede all promises of men to greatness, comfort, immunities. These men of courage and integrity were saying:
“‘We do not have to live, but we must be true to ourselves and God,’ and it reminds us of the more modern man of integrity, Abraham Lincoln, who said: ‘I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true; I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have.’
“As these brave men were threatened they did not know that Shakespeare, long centuries later, was to say:
“‘There is no terror in your threats: for I am armed so strong in honesty that they pass by me as the idle wind, which I respect not.’ [Julius Caesar, act 4, scene 3.]
“Integrity in man should bring inner peace, sureness of purpose, and security in action. Lack of integrity brings disunity, fear, sorrow, unsureness.” (Integrity, p. 19.)
What is the message of Belshazzar’s experience in Daniel 5? Compare this chapter with 2 Nephi 28:7–8 and JS—M 1:41–55. Could you ever be in a position similar to that Belshazzar was in?
|
|
When the Northern Kingdom of Israel was taken captive by Assyria in 721 B.C., Assyria ruled most of the known world. Yet, within a few short decades, the Assyrian Empire had crumbled before the onslaught of the Babylonians. Under Nebuchadnezzar Babylonia became a world empire, inheriting for the most part territories and peoples conquered by Assyria. If these peoples resisted their new masters, Nebuchadnezzar responded swiftly and savagely. So fell Judah in 586 B.C. Though the Lord used the conquering empires as scourges in His hand to punish rebellious and backsliding Israel and Judah, once they had fulfilled their purpose they too came to a swift end.
Nebuchadnezzar’s vigorous rule in Babylon was finished in 562 B.C. He was the last great Chaldean ruler, and at his death the empire’s decline was rapid. The Babylonians’ own wickedness brought swift decline. Nebuchadnezzar was followed by Amil-Marduk (called Evil-merodach in 2 Kings 25:27), who ruled for less than two years. Neriglissar, a brother-in-law to Evil-merodach, ruled for only four years. Labashi-Murduk, son of Neriglissar, was deposed after nine months. Nabonidus, a leader of the priestly party, ruled for sixteen years, from 555 to 539 B.C., but he spent most of his time at the Oasis of Teima in Arabia. Affairs of state in Babylon were left in the hands of Belshazzar, the son of Nabonidus. Under Belshazzar, even the people of Babylon became disgusted with their corrupt nation.
As long as the mighty stag in the forest is erect and strong, its enemies are held at bay. But at the slightest sign of weakness, the wolves move in for the kill. So it is with empires, and Babylon was reeling. The predators were waiting. East and north of the Persian Gulf, two nations were coming to power: the Medes and the Persians. Uniting under the direction of Cyrus, the Median-Persian alliance turned toward Babylon. Cyrus was to have a profound effect on the history of the house of Israel and the world. One historian noted the significance of this man:
“Cyrus the Great emerged in history in 559 B.C. as ruler of the little province of Anshan, a district in northwestern Elam just south of Media and east of the Zagros Mountains. Anshan was then under the overlordship of Media. When Cyrus revolted against his overlord Astyages, the Median army went over to him in a body, surrendering Astyages as prisoner. Cyrus apparently was the voluntary choice of the Medes as their king. The empire’s capital, Ecbatana, with all its treasure, came into possession of Cyrus practically without a blow. Thus within ten years Cyrus made himself master of the Median empire comprising modern Persia, northern Assyria, Armenia, and Asia Minor as far west as the river Halys. [See Maps.]
“After two years spent in organizing the empire Cyrus moved westward, bent on conquest. After conquering northern Mesopotamia he attacked and defeated the fabulously rich Croesus, king of Lydia, whose kingdom extended from the river Halys [in Turkey] to the Aegean Sea [in Greece]. . . .
“Returning in 539 B.C., Cyrus advanced against Babylon, which opened its gates to him without a battle. [According to Daniel, Belshazzar saw the handwriting on the wall telling him of the fall of Babylon the very night before Cyrus entered the city and brought an end to the Babylonian empire (see Daniel 5).] Indeed, [Cyrus] seems to have been welcomed by the populace as a friend and benefactor. Thus Cyrus became master of all western Asia.
“The fall of Babylon marked the end of Semitic world power. With the triumph of Cyrus, a new race, the Indo-European, came into world dominion and the political destiny of the world was thenceforth in the hands of that race. This, therefore, marks a new and very important watershed in Biblical history.
“Cyrus was a born ruler of men. He inaugurated a new policy in the treatment of conquered peoples. Instead of tyrannizing over them and holding them in subjection by brute force, he treated his subjects with consideration and won them as his friends. He was particularly considerate of the religions of conquered peoples. The effect of this policy was to weld his subjects to him in a loyalty which made his reign an era of peace.” (Elmer W. K. Mould, Essentials of Bible History, pp. 348–49.)
This revolution in policy was to have a profound effect on the history of the world and particularly on Jewish history, for when Cyrus marched into Babylon, the Jews were still in exile there.
Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539 B.C. Shortly thereafter, as recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22–23 and Ezra 1:1–11, Cyrus decreed throughout his empire that any captive Jews in Babylonia who desired to could return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. Cyrus even allowed the vessels of gold and silver stolen by Nebuchadnezzar’s troops to be returned.
What motivated Cyrus to make such a liberal proclamation? While Cyrus may have been influenced by the religion of his gods (see Ezra 1:7), including the emerging Zoroastrianism, to have respect for the God of Judah, it appears that Cyrus was motivated by the Spirit of the Lord to send the Jews back to their homeland. Josephus wrote:
“In the first year of the reign of Cyrus, which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated [mourned] the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity. And these things God did afford them; for he stirred up the mind of Cyrus, and made him write this throughout all Asia: ‘Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea.’
“This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet said that God had spoken thus to him in a secret vision: ‘My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own land, and build my temple.’ This was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the Divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfil what was so written; so he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave them leave to go back to their own country, and to rebuild their city Jerusalem, and the temple of God, for that he would be their assistant, and that he would write to the rulers and governors that were in the neighbourhood of their country of Judea, that they should contribute to them gold and silver for the building of the temple, and besides that, beasts for their sacrifices.” (Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 11, chap. 1, pars. 1–2.)
The prophecy of Isaiah alluded to by Josephus and implied in Ezra 1:2 is found in Isaiah 44:28–45:1.
Adam Clarke suggested: “It is very probable that when Cyrus took Babylon he found Daniel there, who had been long famed as one of the wisest ministers of state in all the East; and it is most likely that it was this person who pointed out to him the prophecy of Isaiah, and gave him those farther intimations relative to the Divine will which were revealed to himself” (The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 2:730).
Elder Ezra Taft Benson spoke of the contributions of Cyrus:
“King Cyrus lived more than five hundred years before Christ and figured in prophecies of the Old Testament mentioned in 2 Chronicles and the book of Ezra, and by the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Daniel. The Bible states how ‘the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, King of Persia.’ (2 Chron. 36:22.) Cyrus restored certain political and social rights to the captive Hebrews, gave them permission to return to Jerusalem, and directed that Jehovah’s temple should be rebuilt.
“Parley P. Pratt, in describing the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that he had ‘the boldness, courage, temperance, perseverance and generosity of a Cyrus.’ (Autobiography of Parley Parker Pratt [Deseret Book Company, 1938], p. 46.)
“President Wilford Woodruff said:
“‘Now I have thought many times that some of those ancient kings that were raised up, had in some respects more regard for the carrying out of some of these principles and laws, than even the Latter-day Saints have in our day. I will take as an ensample Cyrus. . . . To trace the life of Cyrus from his birth to his death, whether he knew it or not, it looked as though he lived by inspiration in all his movements. He began with that temperance and virtue which would sustain any Christian country or any Christian king. . . . Many of these principles followed him, and I have thought many of them were worthy, in many respects, the attention of men who have the Gospel of Jesus Christ.’ (Journal of Discourses, vol. 22, p. 207.)
“God, the Father of us all, uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposes. It has been true in the past, it is true today, it will be true in the future.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1972, pp. 48–49.)
|
|
|
Elder Ezra Taft Benson |
How did the Jews react to Cyrus’s edict? One writer noted that “not many Jewish exiles proved eager to rush back to Palestine. A half century in Babylonia had led the majority to sink their roots deeply in the land of their enforced adoption. Most of them had become bound to the new land by ties of marriage and friendship and by strong business connections. Moreover there had grown up in Babylonia a generation which knew not Palestine and for such Jews Judea, no longer an attractive place to live in, had no appeal. The pull of a powerful sentimental attachment was needed to induce any of them to return to Palestine and few felt this. Accordingly, the greatest difficulty was encountered in arousing enough enthusiasm to make up a party for the first returning group.” (Mould, Essentials of Bible History, p. 350.)
The first group of returning exiles arrived in Judea sometime after 536 B.C. under the leadership of Zerubbabel or (Zorobabel), a member of the royal Davidic line (see 1 Chronicles 3:19), and Joshua (or Jeshua), a priest of the lineage of Zadok. (Zadok was the high priest at the dedication of Solomon’s temple.) The first return somewhat resembled a religious crusade. It consisted of forty to fifty thousand people. Small groups of exiles continued to come for the next century from Babylonia, but the majority of Jews did not return, and for centuries there was a greater number of Jews in Babylon than in the Holy Land.
A person known in the book of Ezra as Sheshbazzar (see Ezra 1:8, 11; 5:14, 16) was designated as the governor of this Holy Land colony. Scholars dispute whether Sheshbazzar was the same person as Zerubbabel. If Sheshbazzar was another person, as indicated in 1 Esdras 6:18 of the Apocrypha, then he mysteriously vanished, since Zerubbabel soon took center stage in Jerusalem.
When the Jews returned to Israel, they found the land inhabited by Samaritans, a people whose name came from the city of Samaria, which had been the capital of the Northern Kingdom. When the Northern Kingdom fell to Assyria in 721 B.C., only a few of the poorest class of Israelites were left in the land. The Assyrians brought other peoples to inhabit the land, and they intermarried with the remaining Israelites. They adopted some forms of the worship of Jehovah, but they mixed them with pagan ideas. The Jews in the Southern Kingdom viewed these Samaritans as being not only impure Israelites but pagans as well.
The Jews returning from Babylonia were eager to reinstitute the official worship of Jehovah in Jerusalem. Their first act was to repair the altar of burnt offering and to renew the regular morning and evening sacrifices. They then observed the feast of Tabernacles and other feasts in routine succession. (See Ezra 3:1–6.)
Under the direction of Zerubbabel, the Jews repaired the altar and began to rebuild the temple. The Samaritans asked to join in the project, saying that they had been offering sacrifice to Jehovah since the days of the Assyrian conquest (see Ezra 4:1–2). The Jews flatly refused their help, and the Samaritans in anger openly opposed the project (see Ezra 4:3–5). Because of this interference from the Samaritans and because of indifference that arose among the Jews (see Haggai 1:2–6), the temple building was put off until the second year of the reign of Darius I, about 520 B.C.
The resumption of the temple construction was inspired by two prophets, Haggai and Zechariah (see Ezra 5:1), whose brief writings are preserved in the Old Testament. The local governor and the leaders of Samaria attempted to obstruct the project. The Jews appealed to Darius, eventually proving that they were doing only what Cyrus had granted them permission to do. So they were allowed to continue their project (see Ezra 5–6). The temple was finished in 515 B.C. This temple is known either as the second temple (Solomon’s was the first) or the temple of Zerubbabel. The second temple did not compare in splendor to the temple of Solomon, for the people were very poor at the time they built it.
There is no mention of Zerubbabel after the temple was completed. After his time, the leadership of the community was held by the priests. This theocratic government was permitted by the Persians and for a time by Alexander the Great.
Not much is known of the state of Jewish affairs between the completion of the temple in 515 B.C. and the appearance in Jerusalem of Ezra and Nehemiah and the colonies that came with them. Nehemiah’s appearance at Jerusalem can be firmly dated at 445 B.C. The date of Ezra’s mission is disputed. Some scholars date Ezra’s journey before that of Nehemiah, some after. The scriptures seem to indicate that Ezra’s group came to Jerusalem before Nehemiah. Another source states that Ezra came in 458 B.C. (see J. D. Douglas, ed., The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Persia,” p. 1199).
In any event, there is a span of about three generations between the first return and the return of Ezra and Nehemiah. During this period, Persian culture reached its greatest height, as evidenced by the impressive ruins standing at Persepolis, the capital of the Persian Empire. The luxury of the Persian court is described in the book of Esther.
Little is known about Jewish life during this period. Politically the Jews were ruled by Persian officers, but from their own point of view, and in general practice, they maintained a theocracy ruled by God’s anointed high priest. In view of the reforms initiated later by Ezra and Nehemiah, a strict adherence to the laws of Moses was evidently not observed. The priests intermarried with their non-Israelite neighbors, and the city of Jerusalem was allowed to further deteriorate.
Under Artaxerxes I (465–424 B.C.), Jewish officers had official representation at the Persian court. Ezra seems to have held some kind of important court office, and he was accredited as a special envoy to reorganize the temple services at Jerusalem. The eager Jews were led on by the encouragement they had received from the Persian court to exceed the terms of Ezra’s commission, and they rebuilt the city wall.
Nehemiah was a royal cupbearer in the Persian court (see Nehemiah 2:1). Since assassination was an ever-present danger for kings anciently, and poison was often employed, the cupbearer held a highly trusted position in the court. His calling was to ensure that the king’s food and drink were safe. (See Samuel Fallows, ed., The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary, s.v. “Cupbearer.”) Nehemiah succeeded in using his favored position to have himself named governor of Judah.
Nehemiah’s energy, ability, unselfish patriotism, and personal integrity brought a new, exuberant Judah into existence once again. The restoration of Jerusalem, which had lain in ruins for a century and a half, was begun. Ezra, a righteous, dedicated priest, joined Nehemiah in the work, and together they succeeded in restoring a Jewish community in Jerusalem once again. Psalm 48 is a song celebrating the restoration of Jerusalem. It shows how Jewish confidence was then revived. Judah developed a semiautonomous government and gradually enlarged their district’s borders to become approximately half the size of the kingdom of Judah when it fell in 581 B.C. Judah remained in peace throughout the duration of the Persian Empire.
When Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire in 331 B.C., the Jews simply transferred their allegiance from one monarch to another. Jewish tradition relates how Alexander was met by the high priest in Jerusalem and was read the prophecies of Daniel that one of the Greeks would destroy the Persians (see Daniel 7:6; 8:3, 20–22; 11:3). Alexander, supposing this meant himself, rejoiced and accepted the Jewish nation without going to war against them.
Diaspora is a Greek word meaning “dispersion.” According to the Jews, there is a difference between a forced exile and a voluntary dispersion. The forced exile is usually referred to by the Hebrew word galut, meaning “exile.” Diaspora is generally used by the Jews to refer to their voluntary dispersion. According to present-day Jews, Diaspora is a correct designation for all Jews still living outside of Eretz Israel (land of Israel).
The term Diaspora refers to the scattering of the house of Israel into countries other than the Holy Land. Latter-day Saints know that the entire house of Israel was scattered, but, as used by most scholars, the word Diaspora is applied principally to the dispersion of the Jews throughout all the earth.
The Lord through His prophets long ago foretold the scattering or dispersion of Judah and all of Israel throughout the world. (See Deuteronomy 28:64; Jeremiah 29:18; Ezekiel 12:15; Amos 9:9; Zechariah 10:9.)
The first major dispersion of Israel began with the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, which resulted in the captivity of that nation in 722 B.C. (See Enrichment D.)
Although the first significant Jewish Diaspora resulted from the Babylonian exile, small colonies of Jews made their way to Egypt before this exile. One of these exiles is the subject of some of Jeremiah’s dire prophecies (see Jeremiah 43–44). The Jews spoken of by Jeremiah settled near the delta of the Nile. They repudiated Jehovah completely, impudently asserting that it was worship of Him that had caused all their misery and disaster. Other groups of Jews who came to Egypt shortly before and during the Babylonian sieges of Jerusalem were hospitably received, and they prospered. They established Jewish quarters in several of the larger cities there. Many of them attempted to transplant to this new home the pattern of their religious life. Such was the case at Elephantine, where archeological discoveries reveal that a Jewish colony constructed a temple similar to the one in Jerusalem.
Nebuchadnezzar deported to Babylon large groups of Jewish exiles between 605 B.C. and 587 B.C. Despite Cyrus’s edict, most of the exiles chose to stay in Babylon because of favorable economic and agricultural conditions. Gradually, in the centuries from 400 B.C. to A.D. 200 and even later, the Jews dispersed themselves to all parts of the known world and set up enduring colonies.
An eminent historian discussed the existence of dispersed Jews in other parts of the Roman Empire at the time of the Christian era:
“Josephus describes Syria as the country with the highest percentage of Jewish inhabitants, which is very probably on account of its proximity to Eretz Israel. There were particularly important Jewish centers in the capital Antioch, in Damascus, and in Apamea. According to Philo, numerous Jews lived in Syria and in Asia Minor, where the settlement of Jews was greatly promoted by the policy of the Seleucid kings, whose rule extended over large areas of Asia Minor. Thus it is known that Antiochus III (223–187 B.C.E.) settled 2,000 Babylonian Jewish families in Phrygia and Lydia. From the period of the Roman rule at the end of the republic and the beginning of the Julio-Claudian principate there is clear evidence of the existence of Jews in most of the important cities of Asia Minor, in Adramyttium, Pergamum, Sardis, Ephesus, Tralles, Miletus, Iasus, Halicarnassus, Laodicea, Tarsus, and very many others, as well as in the regions of Bithynia, Pontus, and Cappadocia. . . . There were many Jews, too, in the various islands of the eastern Mediterranean. . . . Many Jews also lived in Crete, Delos, Paros, Melos, Euboea, and in other islands.
“. . . There were Jews in all the important urban centers of Greece and Macedonia. . . . According to the Acts of the Apostles, there were Jewish communities in Thessalonica, in the Macedonian cities of Philippi and Beroea, and in the famed Greek cities of Athens and Corinth. Inscriptions also attest to Jewish settlements in various places in the Peloponnesus (the district of Laconia, the city of Patrae, Tegea), in Athens, and in Thessaly. From Greece the Jewish settlements spread northward to the Balkan peninsula (Stobi) and reached Pannonia [present-day Europe].” (Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Diaspora,” 6:10–11.)
The dispersed people of Judah are frequently referred to in the New Testament. The Jews in the temple spoke of them when questioning Jesus at the feast of Tabernacles (see John 7:35). At the feast of Pentecost, fifteen locations other than Judea were represented by Jewish pilgrims (see Acts 2:9–11). Luke, in the book of Acts, spoke of Jewish synagogues in the Roman Empire that were of great service in the spreading of Christianity (see Acts 6:9; 13:43–45; 14:1–2, 19; 16:3; 17:1, 4, 10–13; 18:2, 12, 19; 19:13–17, 33; 28:17–29).
“In general, the Jews of the Dispersion were sincerely loyal to the religion of their ancestors. They recognized Jerusalem as the Holy City, paid their annual taxes to the temple and whenever possible made pilgrimages to Zion to celebrate the holy days. Nevertheless, in many synagogues outside Judea services were being conducted in Greek, mixed marriages were becoming a familiar practice again and the rite of circumcision was increasingly ignored. Among the many Hellenistic ideas that gained ground with the dispersed Jews was the popular belief that different peoples simply worshiped the same God by different names. This doctrine was anathema to the priests and scholars of Jerusalem, for it blurred the differences between Jew and Gentile.” (Great People of the Bible and How They Lived, p. 253.)
Devout Jews visited Jerusalem for the great feasts when possible (see Acts 2:5–11; 8:27). Paul, raised as a Jew of the Diaspora in Tarsus, was faithful to the law and to the nation (see Philippians 3:5–6). Apollos, a Christian convert, was a Jew of the Diaspora from Alexandria and was “mighty in the scriptures” (Acts 18:24).
What effect did the Jewish religion of the Diaspora have upon their gentile neighbors? One author describes how the Jews made proselytes:
“The Jews are often unjustly charged with a rigid exclusivism. In fact, particularly among the Dispersion, they recognized their mission to the Gentiles, and there was a sincere attempt to win converts. To accept the Jewish religion was no light matter for a Gentile. He must accept circumcision and baptism, and agree to keep the whole law of Moses, including such ritual prescriptions as the sabbath and the laws about unclean food. He must in fact renounce his own nationality. There were a considerable number who took this drastic step, and it is to them that the term ‘proselyte’ applies.
“Many more were attracted by the monotheistic faith and the strict morality of Judaism in contrast with the decadent polytheism of Rome. They were prepared to identify themselves with the faith and ideals of the Jews, but stopped short of the proselyte’s full commitment. These fellow-travellers, many of them rich and influential officials, are known in the New Testament as ‘those who fear God’ or ‘the devout’ (Acts 13:26, 43, 50; 17:4).” (David Alexander and Pat Alexander, eds., Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible, p. 497.) The proselytes were a rich source of converts to early Christianity, for in the Church they found the moral law without the burdens of the Mosaic code.
|
|
|
The veil of a synagogue in Jerusalem |
During the first centuries of the dispersion, “the occupations of the Jews in the countries of the Hellenistic-Roman Diaspora were varied, and certainly they were not confined to only a few specified occupations, as was the case in the Middle Ages, and no restrictions were placed on them. In Judea, the Jews had been farmers from the earliest days, and while the cultivation of the soil remained an important occupation of the Jews in the countries of the Diaspora, they also engaged in other pursuits. Numerous papyri in particular furnish considerable evidence of the part played by the Jews in the agriculture of Egypt. Among the Jewish agriculturists in Ptolemaic Egypt were ‘royal farmers,’ tenant farmers, military settlers, and agricultural workers. There were also Jewish peasants and shepherds. Other documents show that there was a Jewish family of potters in ‘a Syrian village’ in the Fayyum district, and also a Jewish weaver in Upper Egypt in the second century B.C.E. Jewish officials were prominent in government service, occupying positions in the police force, in the administration of the government banks, and particularly in the collection of taxes.
“A similar diversity characterized the economic life of the Jews in Roman Egypt. In Roman Alexandria there were wealthy Jews, bankers with interterritorial connections, important merchants, and shipowners who filled a notable role in the Egyptian, and in the entire Mediterranean, economy. However, alongside these, Jewish artisans and poor Jews were no less prominent. The Jewish artisans in Roman Alexandria engaged in various trades, and even occupied places in the large synagogue according to their occupations. Among the Alexandrian Jews, some owned land in various places whereas others had difficulty in making a livelihood, as can be seen from the papyri of Abusir el Meleq. This picture is confirmed by documents relating to the provincial towns. Thus in Roman Egypt some Jews owned land, some engaged in cultivating the soil and in rearing sheep, some in transport on land or along the Nile where they loaded cargo for various parts of Egypt, while others were artisans. . . . More or less the same state of affairs existed in the other countries of the Mediterranean world. . . .
“[Under Roman law the Jews were granted the right] to organize themselves in their own institutions and to establish an autonomous system of internal administration and justice, to refrain from taking part in what they regarded as idolatry, and to be exempt from duties involving a transgression of Jewish religious precepts. The permission to refrain from idolatry also included the right to abstain from taking part in emperor worship, the chief expression of the loyalty of the peoples of the empire, abstention from which was generally regarded as treason.” (Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Diaspora,” 6:11–13.)
In the year 2000, of the estimated 13 million Jews in the world, about 5,800,000 million resided in the United States, 4,800,000 in Israel; 600,000 in France; and 400,000 in Russia, with other sizeable groups in Europe, the Americas, and around the world.
The Lord never intended for Israel and Judah to remain scattered. Isaiah prophesied that “the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people . . . and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth” (Isaiah 11:11–12). Psalm 147:2 reads: “The Lord doth build up Jerusalem: he gathereth together the outcasts [diasporai in the Greek version of the Old Testament] of Israel.” Nephi added this significant idea to the teachings of the restoration of the Jews: “After [the Jews] have been scattered . . . even down from generation to generation, . . . they shall be persuaded to believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement” (2 Nephi 25:16). Isaiah described how in large measure the Jews would be restored: “And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their [the Gentiles’] queens thy nursing mothers” (Isaiah 49:23).
Elder Wilford Woodruff, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, issued an epistle to the world on 22 February 1879 and, in part, addressed himself to the dispersed of Judah: “For the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, and the Lord has decreed that the Jews should be gathered from all the Gentile nations where they have been driven, into their own land, in fulfillment of the words of Moses their lawgiver. And this is the will of your great Eloheim, O house of Judah, and whenever you shall be called upon to perform this work, the God of Israel will help you. You have a great future and destiny before you and you cannot avoid fulfilling it; you are the royal chosen seed, and the God of your father’s house has kept you distinct as a nation for eighteen hundred years, under all the oppression of the whole Gentile world. You may not wait until you believe on Jesus of Nazareth, but when you meet with Shiloh your king, you will know him; your destiny is marked out, you cannot avoid it. It is true that after you return and gather your nation home, and rebuild your City and Temple, that the Gentiles may gather together their armies to go against you to battle, to take you a prey and to take you as a spoil, which they will do, for the words of your prophets must be fulfilled; but when this affliction comes, the living God, that led Moses through the wilderness, will deliver you, and your Shiloh will come and stand in your midst and will fight your battles; and you will know him, and the afflictions of the Jews will be at an end, while the destruction of the Gentiles will be so great that it will take the whole house of Israel who are gathered about Jerusalem, seven months to bury the dead of their enemies, and the weapons of war will last them seven years for fuel, so that they need not go to any forest for wood. These are tremendous sayings—who can bear them? Nevertheless they are true, and will be fulfilled, according to the sayings of Ezekiel, Zechariah, and other prophets. Though the heavens and the earth pass away, not one jot or tittle will fall unfulfilled.” (In Matthias F. Cowley, Wilford Woodruff, pp. 509–10.)
|
|
|
The lion of Judah |
“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
“How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?
“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
“If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.” (Psalm 137:1, 4–6.)
While in captivity the faithful Jews wept by the rivers of Babylon. Because of sorrow, they could not bear to sing the songs of Zion, for their hearts yearned to be back in their land of promise and in their holy city.
But how could they go back? They were captive to the powerful nation of Babylon. Yet the Lord rules in the heavens and watches over His chosen people. He would provide a way for the faithful of Judah to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple and the city.
The Lord had foreordained a person to make possible the return of the Jews. This person was not of the house of Israel, but the Lord nonetheless had chosen him before he was born to bless the house of Israel. His name was Cyrus, known in history as Cyrus the Great.
How would you feel if you were reading the scriptures and suddenly read your own name, and not only that, but you also noticed that a prophet had prophesied that you were going to do a remarkable thing for someone? What would be your reaction? Read Isaiah 44:28–45:1. How do you think Cyrus felt? How did he react?
Try to see the motivation and feelings of Cyrus toward this prophecy and the freeing of the Jews. (See also Elder Ezra Taft Benson’s comments about the greatness of Cyrus in Conference Report, Apr. 1972, pp. 48–49; or Ensign, July 1972, pp. 59–60.)
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study the book of Ezra.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual-study students should complete all of this section.)
The books of the Bible do not fall into chronological order. Their position is determined usually by whether they are historical or prophetic books. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally part of a compilation that included 1 and 2 Chronicles. Ezra 1:1–3 and 2 Chronicles 36:22–23 and are almost identical.
The books of Ezra and Nehemiah are actually the last two historical books of the Old Testament.
Zechariah and Haggai were prophets during this same period. Malachi is the only prophet known to have served in Israel between the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and the beginning of the New Testament.
The books of Ezra and Nehemiah tell the story of Israel’s history from the first return to Jerusalem until the end of Nehemiah’s second term as governor of Judah (538 B.C. to shortly before 400 B.C.; see Enrichment J).
Esther’s sojourn in Persia belongs to the time between the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem and Ezra’s return (beginning in Ezra 7:1).
In Jeremiah 25:11–12 and 29:10 the prophet Jeremiah spoke of seventy years of Babylonian captivity. (See Enrichment J for biographical data on Cyrus the Great, the first king of the Persian Empire, and how the prophecy of Isaiah concerning Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28; 45 likely influenced his actions toward the Jews.)
Ezra 2:64–65 indicates that approximately fifty thousand people made the first trip back to Jerusalem. Ezra 1:4 tells of the responsibilities of the Jews who remained in Babylonia. By far, most of the expatriated Jews chose not to return to Jerusalem at this time, a decision that indicates how well they had been absorbed into the Babylonian way of life.
The Lord saw to it that the exiles did not return empty handed; neither did the children of Israel at the time of the Exodus from Egypt (see Exodus 12:35–36). Precious items were collected to be used to adorn the temple as the Lord had specified. That Cyrus would allow such wealth to be gathered for the temple is an indication of how seriously he viewed the prophecy of Isaiah concerning him.
Sheshbazzar is identified in Ezra 1:8 as the prince of Judah. Ezra 5:14 indicates that Cyrus made Sheshbazzar the governor, but his name is not mentioned in the list of the returning Jews. Haggai 2:2 identifies Zerubbabel as the governor of Judah (see Ezra 3:8). Many scholars have therefore identified Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel as the same person. The book of 1 Esdras 6:18 in the Apocrypha and other authorities say they are two people. The evidence seems to favor the idea of two separate persons. Both were of the royal line of Judah, and both were probably appointed by Cyrus. Zerubbabel has become the more famous in history because he outlived the older Sheshbazzar.
Zerubbabel was a descendant of Jehoiachin, the king who was carried away captive into Babylon (see Enrichments A and G), which descent means he was of the royal Davidic line. Zerubbabel was also an ancestor of Jesus Christ (see Matthew 1:12; Zorobabel is the Greek form). Zerubbabel was the governor of Judah (see Haggai 2:2). The second temple in Jerusalem is often called the temple of Zerubbabel. Haggai and Zechariah prophesied favorably about the role and trustworthiness of Zerubbabel (see Haggai 2:4, 21–23; Zechariah 4:6–9).
The name Jeshua appears in the book of Ezra but is also spelled Joshua in Haggai. This man, Jeshua, was the high priest (see Haggai 1:1). Zerubbabel and Jeshua, being motivated by the prophetic inspiration of Haggai and Zechariah, together directed the rebuilding of the temple (see Ezra 6:14; Haggai 1:12–14; Zechariah 4:9).
Nethinims, meaning “given” or “appointed” in Hebrew, was the name given the servants in the temple who attended the Levites in their sacred services (see Nehemiah 7:60).
“This passage (Ezra 2:62–63) has reference to those who returned from the captivity who had intermarried among peoples who were not entitled to the blessings of the priesthood” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:165). By marrying out of the covenant, some Israelites lost the right to have their descendants officiate in the priesthood. This experience of old was referred to directly in the Doctrine and Covenants as a warning to modern priesthood bearers who take it upon themselves to set aside the decreed order of God (see D&C 85:11–12; 121:16–22).
The Tirshatha was the title of the governor of Judea under the Persians. This title was perhaps derived from the Persian root meaning “stern” or “severe.” (See also Nehemiah 7:65; 8:9; 10:1.)
Jeshua, the high priest, and Zerubbabel, the governor, cooperated to direct the rebuilding of the temple. The reconstruction began with the very heart of Israel’s religious facilities, the altar of the temple, which was placed on the very site where the temple formerly had stood. The altar was necessary so that worship and sacrifice could begin again according to the pattern laid down by Moses (see Leviticus 1–7). The altar was made ready for the sacrifices of the week of Succoth (feast of Tabernacles) and for other high holy days.
|
|
|
The altar of the temple of Solomon |
The shouting and singing in praise of the Lord that accompanied the laying of the foundation of the temple was performed according to the custom established by David (see 1 Chronicles 25). Two choirs, or a choir and soloist, sang alternately. It is likely that the shout was similar to the Hosanna Shout used in connection with modern solemn assemblies. (See Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, pp. 433–34.)
Josephus explained that the remembrance of the former temple caused the old priests to weep. The temple of Solomon had been beautiful and sumptuously adorned. Now, because of the extreme poverty of the returning exiles, the second temple was greatly inferior to the first. “Hereupon they were disconsolate, and not able to contain their grief, and proceeded so far as to lament and shed tears on those accounts” (Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 11, chap. 4, par. 2).
“At the final captivity of Israel by Shalmaneser, . . . the cities of Samaria were . . . depopulated of their inhabitants in B.C. 721, and . . . they remained in this desolated state until, in the words of 2 Kings 17:24, ‘the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava (Ivah, 2 Kings 18:34), and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.’ Thus the new Samaritans were Assyrians by birth or subjugation.” (William Smith, A Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. “Samaritans.”)
The Assyrian foreigners were idolaters and had no desire to serve Jehovah or worship rightfully in the temple. Later when these foreign Samaritans intermarried with some of the Israelites, both a mixed race of Samaritans and a variant form of the worship of Jehovah developed. Such were the circumstances in the New Testament times. This variant religion was heavily intermingled with pagan and other unauthorized religious practices, which the Jews saw as highly offensive. When Zerubbabel refused their help, the Samaritans were understandably angry and sought revenge by writing to the king of Persia and accusing the Jews of rebellion.
Elder James E. Talmage explained: “The claim was made that of old the people of Judah had been a trouble to other nations, and that with the restoration of their Temple they would again become seditious” (The House of the Lord, p. 41; see also Ezra 4:19).
Eventually the Jews proved that they had received permission to rebuild the temple and the problem was resolved, but this incident reveals the foundations of the tremendous bitterness between the Samaritans and the Jews so evident in Christ’s time.
Aramaic is the language referred to as “the Syrian tongue” in Ezra 4:7. It was the international diplomatic language of the Persian Empire.
The words “this side” in Ezra 4:10 mean west of the Euphrates River (see also Ezra 5:3; 6:13). Asnappar is the Aramaic version of Ashurbanipal, the name of the province that included Judea and Syria.
The text in Ezra 4:13 would read more clearly if “will they not” were rendered “they will not.”
The work on the temple ceased for fifteen to seventeen years because of the interference of the Samaritans (see Enrichment J).
After many years, prophets of God appeared in Jerusalem to provide the inspired direction and incentive to continue the temple building. In the first year of the reign of King Darius, the prophet Daniel petitioned the Lord about Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years (see Daniel 9:1–2). Zerubbabel had returned to Jerusalem about sixteen years previously and had been frustrated in his temple building project. Daniel 9:17–19 shows Daniel’s prayerful concern for the sanctuary (temple) and the city Jerusalem. The Lord answered Daniel and raised up two prophets in Jerusalem: Haggai and Zechariah. Haggai 1:1–5, 12–14; Zechariah 4:9; and Ezra 6:14 show how these two prophets inspired Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the people to complete the holy temple in spite of persecution, hard times, and governmental red tape, much as prophets in this dispensation have inspired the Saints to sacrifice much to build temples.
Darius recognized the role of God in human affairs. During his reign, Darius adopted the religion of Zoroastrianism for the Persian Empire. Darius probably thought that the god he worshiped also wanted the temple of Judah rebuilt. And, the decrees of one king were often honored by his successors.
The second temple in Jerusalem was completed in 516 B.C., exactly seventy years after the temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. Thus, Jeremiah’s prophecy was fulfilled (see Jeremiah 29:10–14).
“It is known in history as the Temple of Zerubbabel. In general plan it was patterned after the Temple of Solomon, though in many of its dimensions it exceeded its prototype. The court was divided into a section for priests only and another for the public; according to Josephus the division was effected by a wooden railing. An altar of unhewn stone was erected in place of the great brazen altar of old. The Holy Place was graced by but one candlestick instead of ten; and by a single table for the shew-bread instead of the ten tables overlaid with gold which stood in the first Temple. We read also of a golden altar of incense, and of some minor appurtenances. The Most Holy Place was empty, for the Ark of the Covenant had not been known after the people had gone into captivity.
“In many respects the Temple of Zerubbabel appeared poor in comparison with its splendid predecessor and in certain particulars, indeed, it ranked lower than the ancient Tabernacle of the Congregation—the sanctuary of the nomadic tribes. Critical scholars specify the following features characteristic of the Temple of Solomon and lacking in the Temple of Zerubbabel: (1) the Ark of the Covenant; (2) the sacred fire; (3) the Shekinah, or glory of the Lord, manifested of old as the Divine Presence; (4) the Urim and Thummim, by which Jehovah made plain His will to the priests of the Aaronic order; (5) the genius or spirit of prophecy, indicative of the closest communion between mortals and their God. Notwithstanding these differences the Temple of Zerubbabel was recognized of God and was undoubtedly the site or seat of Divine revelation to duly constituted prophets.” (Talmage, House of the Lord, pp. 42–43.)
It was the temple of Zerubbabel that King Herod refurbished and made very beautiful. He added many courtyards and surrounding buildings that made it one of the wonders of the world at the time of Jesus. (See Notes and Commentary on Haggai 2:3–9.)
The king of Assyria was the Persian monarch, the king of what was once Assyrian territory.
“Nearly 60 years separate 7:1 from 6:22, during which time Esther is able to avert a complete massacre of the Jewish people and, indirectly, to save the lives of Ezra and Nehemiah [see Notes and Commentary on Esther]. Artaxerxes is favourably disposed towards the Jews, and Ezra the scholar and teacher (direct descendant of the high priests) is given official sanction to teach the law and appoint magistrates in his homeland, to offer sacrifices and beautify the temple. (Ezra’s own memoirs, written in Hebrew, begin at verse 27.)” (David Alexander and Pat Alexander, eds., Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible, pp. 307–8.)
Josephus spoke of the circumstances in Jerusalem at the time of Ezra and how he was assigned to correct the situation (Ezra is known as Esdras in the Josephus account). Ezra was a man of great faith, and one moved by the Spirit of the Lord. He petitioned King Xerxes for permission to return with more Jews. Xerxes agreed and wrote a letter to the governors of Judah. Josephus wrote:
“When Esdras had received this epistle, he was very joyful, and began to worship God, and confessed that he had been the cause of the king’s great favour to him, and that for the same reason he gave all the thanks to God. . . . So he gathered those that were in the captivity together beyond Euphrates, and staid there three days, and ordained a fast for them, that they might make their prayers to God for their preservation, that they might suffer no misfortunes by the way, either from their enemies, or from any other ill accident; for Esdras had said beforehand, that he had told the king how God would preserve them. . . .
“Now these things were truly done under the conduct of Esdras; and he succeeded in them, because God esteemed him worthy of the success of his conduct, on account of his goodness and righteousness.” (Antiquities, bk. 11, chap. 5, par. 3.)
In addition to being a priest, Ezra was “a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel” (Ezra 7:11). Ezra, the scribe of the law, was charged by the Persian king to teach the people in Jerusalem of the law and then set up a judgment system for the lawbreakers (see Ezra 7:25–26).
Elder James E. Talmage explained the system of scribes set up by Ezra and the consequences of that system in future generations: “As early as four score years after the return from the Babylonian exile, and we know not with accuracy how much earlier, there had come to be recognized, as men having authority, certain scholars afterward known as scribes, and honored as rabbis or teachers. In the days of Ezra and Nehemiah these specialists in the law constituted a titled class, to whom deference and honor were paid. Ezra is designated ‘the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel.’ The scribes of those days did valuable service under Ezra, and later under Nehemiah, in compiling the sacred writings then extant; and in Jewish usage those appointed as guardians and expounders of the law came to be known as members of the Great Synagog, or Great Assembly, concerning which we have little information through canonical channels. According to Talmudic record, the organization consisted of one hundred and twenty eminent scholars. The scope of their labors, according to the admonition traditionally perpetuated by themselves, is thus expressed: Be careful in judgment; set up many scholars, and make a hedge about the law. They followed this behest by much study and careful consideration of all traditional details in administration; by multiplying scribes and rabbis unto themselves; and, as some of them interpreted the requirement of setting up many scholars, by writing many books and tractates; moreover, they made a fence or hedge about the law by adding numerous rules, which prescribed with great exactness the officially established proprieties for every occasion.” (Jesus the Christ, pp. 63–64.)
“Ezra’s party of over 1700 includes priests, people and, somewhat reluctantly, Levites. With them they take gifts valuing more than £1,000,000 [about $2,225,000]. Ezra is faced with a long and dangerous journey at a time of great unrest. And having boasted his confidence in God, he can hardly now apply to the king for an escort! His prayer is heartfelt, and his faith rewarded by God’s own safe-conduct.” (Alexander and Alexander, Eerdmans’ Handbook, p. 308.)
Any male member of the tribe of Levi was a Levite, but a priest had to be a descendant of Aaron, who was also of the tribe of Levi. Priests were thus a subgroup of the Levites. The sons referred to in Ezra 8:15 are those of the Levites who were not priests, that is, those Levites who were not descendants of Aaron.
Shortly after Ezra arrived in Jerusalem, he commenced his priestly duties of putting affairs in order. The priests and Levites in Jerusalem had allowed the temple service to seriously deteriorate. Many of them had gone out to make a living because the temple was not supported sufficiently to allow them to serve full time. Some of them had even taken wives of the pagan nations, as had many other Jewish citizens. All of this horrified Ezra and many of the faithful who had told him of the problem (see Ezra 9:1–4). Intermarriage with people from some of the surrounding nations was expressly forbidden by the Lord because it led to idolatry (see Deuteronomy 7:1–5). Idolatry had led to the downfall of the Israelite nation, but even the horrors of defeat and exile had not taught the people their lesson.
Ezra 10:3, 7, 10–12 shows how Ezra successfully called the people to Jerusalem to confess their transgressions and to covenant to put away their heathen wives. It was an important step for the people of Judah in preparing themselves to be worthy of the temple and the sacred land to which the Lord had prophesied they would return.
It appears that the covenant renewal led by Ezra and described in Nehemiah 8–10 occurred at about this same time (see Notes and Commentary on Nehemiah 8–10). Compare Ezra’s concern for the Jews’ unrighteous intermarrying recorded in Ezra 9:1–15 with that of Nehemiah, the governor, recorded in Nehemiah 13:23–27.
Ezra’s instructions about the strange wives occurred at the time of heavy December rains in Jerusalem. It was cold and wet, and these conditions, along with the people’s sorrow for their apostasy, caused them to tremble.
|
|
|
Water ponds in the Negev from the winter rains |
“According to a passage in Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, Ezra offered a paschal lamb on this occasion, and addressed the people thus: ‘And Ezra said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our Refuge; and if ye will be persuaded of it, and let it enter into your hearts, that we are to humble ourselves to him in a sign, and afterwards shall believe in him, this place shall not be destroyed for ever, saith the Lord of Hosts: but if ye will not believe in him, nor hearken to his preaching, ye shall be a laughing-stock to the Gentiles.’—Dial. cum Tryphone, sec. 72.
“This passage, Justin says, the Jews, through their enmity to Christ, blotted out of the book of Ezra. He charges them with cancelling several other places through the same spirit of enmity and opposition.” (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 2:752.)
One of the most often repeated lessons of the scriptures is that Jehovah is actively engaged in the affairs of all nations, not just in the affairs of the chosen people of Israel, as Ezra clearly showed. Israel’s predicament described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah seemed impossible. They were a tiny nation in bondage, surrounded by nations stronger than they were. How could they be preserved? Only by the divine intervention of a Supreme Deity who watches over the present while He plans for ages to come. This time in Jewish history was the low ebb in the life of a nation destined yet to become a giant in the earth.
What is true for nations is true for individuals. Do you rest tranquilly in your own trust in the Lord? You should appreciate the following remarks of President Brigham Young:
“The mysterious and invisible hand (so called) of Providence is manifested in all the works of God. Who of this congregation can realise for one moment, that the Lord would notice so trifling an affair as the hairs you have combed from your heads this morning? Yet it is so, not one hair has fallen to the ground without the notice of our Father in heaven. To convince the ancient Apostles of His care over them, Jesus selected the most trifling things, in their estimation, to illustrate to their minds that the least thing escaped not His notice. Said he—’Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without the knowledge of your Father. But the very hairs of your head are numbered.’
“Can we realize how this Providence governs and controls the nations of the earth, and marks out the destinies of individual man? If we have not learned these lessons they are before us, and we have them yet to learn. If we have not yet learned that poverty, sickness, pain, want, disappointment, losses, crosses, or even death, should not move us one hair’s breadth from the service of God, or separate us from the principles of eternal life, it is a lesson we have to learn. If we have not learned how to handle the things of this world in the light of salvation, we have it yet to learn. Though we have mountains of gold and silver, and stores of precious things heaped up, and could control the elements, and command the cattle on a thousand hills, if we have not learned that every iota of it should be devoted to the building up of the kingdom of God on earth, it is a lesson yet to learn.” (In Journal of Discourses, 1:336.)
When Ezra approached the Persian monarch for permission to lead a colony to Judah, “the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him” (Ezra 7:6). “Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments” (Ezra 7:10). Truly, Ezra was an inspired instrument in the hands of the Lord!
Ezra took with his colony millions of dollars (at today’s values) worth of gold, silver, and other precious items. Seemingly, this treasure could reach Jerusalem only if it had a large military guard. The route he had to take was infested with bands of robbers.
But Ezra could not ask the king for an army guard to protect him. Adam Clarke commented on Ezra’s dilemma: “He had represented God, the object of his worship, as supremely powerful, and as having the strongest affection for his true followers: he could not, therefore, consistently with his declarations, ask a band of soldiers from the king to protect them on the way, when they were going expressly to rebuild the temple of Jehovah, and restore his worship. He therefore found it necessary to seek the Lord by fasting and prayer, that they might have from Him those succours without which they might become a prey to their enemies; and then the religion which they professed would be considered by the heathen as false and vain. Thus we see that this good man had more anxiety for the glory of God than for his own personal safety.” (Commentary, 2:746.)
Read again Ezra 8:21–23, 31. Now read Proverbs 3:5–6. What steps will you take the next time you face a seemingly insurmountable task?
|
|
“Haggai, the earliest prophet of the post-exilic restoration of Judah, is known, apart from this book, only from references made to him in Ezra. These show him as a contemporary of Zechariah, serving in Judah and Jerusalem. As a result of their joint ministry the work of rebuilding the Temple was resumed and completed (Ezr. 5:1; 6:14). Nothing is stated about the private life of Haggai and it is generally assumed that he was one of the main group of exiles who returned from Babylonia following the decree of Cyrus in 538/7 B.C., which allowed the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple. If so he would have witnessed the initial work then undertaken and the subsequent lapse of effort in the face of opposition. . . .
“This was a time when the outlying provinces of the Persian Empire, each under their appointed governor (1:1), were deprived of direct help from the central government. The enlightened policy of encouraging local autonomy in secular and religious affairs initiated by Cyrus, by whose decree the first return of Jews had begun in 536 B.C., had ceased with his death some 6 years later. His son Cambyses (530–522) showed less sympathy to vassal states and this doubtless contributed to the failure of the Jewish people to press forward with the reconstruction of the Temple at Jerusalem where work had come to a standstill soon after the arrival of the first returnees under Sheshbazzar, the Judean governor nominated by the Persians. This interruption was prolonged by the opposition of the Samaritans and local landowners which led to a prohibition of further work. . . . Morale was low and men concentrated on the betterment of their own circumstances. To them it was an inappropriate time to spend effort and wealth on God’s house (1:2).” (D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 781.)
Into this setting the prophet Haggai stepped, calling on the people to recognize the source of their problems and repent. Like so many other prophets, he taught that temporal problems were the direct result of spiritual weaknesses. He told the people that their economic distress was directly caused by their failure to rebuild the temple. He reminded the people that only when God’s will takes priority would they prosper. Thus his call to repentance is a specific one: they were to show their change of heart by rebuilding the temple. To show the significance of their work, Haggai prophesied of the future day when the temple will take on international significance.
Though a short work, the book of Haggai is nevertheless significant for study because it shows the importance of temple worship and obedience to God.
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study the book of Haggai.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual-study students should complete all of this section.)
The Jews in Jerusalem were charged by Haggai: “Consider your ways” (Haggai 1:7). They had refused to fulfill the assignment given them by the Lord to rebuild the temple. True, there had been difficult circumstances because of the interference of the Samaritans, but the Lord would not bless them with prosperity if they did not heed His commands (compare D&C 82:10).
There are parallels between Haggai’s time and Latter-day Saint history since the Latter-day Saints also built two temples, one in Kirtland and one in Nauvoo, in times of great poverty and persecution. Compare Haggai’s call to Israel with the revelations given to Joseph Smith about the Saints’ task of building the Nauvoo temple (see D&C 124:31–55). The Lord directly tied the poverty of the people of Haggai’s time and the sterility of the land to their failure to heed the commandment to rebuild the Lord’s house (see Haggai 1:9–11).
When the foundation of the second temple was laid, some who had known the former temple wept with joy at the thought that they could have again the blessings that had been available in Solomon’s temple (see Ezra 3:12–13). It was evident during the construction that this temple, built in poverty, would not have the splendor of the former temple. The Lord assured the people, however, that it was not the relative splendor of the two buildings that concerned Him, but their obedience to His command to build a house to Him.
Haggai prophesied of a future temple that would surpass Solomon’s in glory and splendor and would be the place where the Lord would give His people peace (see Haggai 2:9). This prophecy will be fulfilled in the latter-day temple that will be built on the same site. Haggai’s prophecy that the “desire of all nations shall come” (v. 7) is a prophecy of Christ, who will bring a lasting peace to the world. Lasting peace, however, will be brought only after the Lord shakes “the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land . . . and . . . all nations” (vv. 6–7) when He comes in His glory to usher in the Millennium. Then His house will indeed be filled with glory, peace will be established, and the desire of all nations will be completely fulfilled. (The phrase “desire of nations” is used in the hymn “Come, O Thou King of Kings,” Hymns, no. 59.)
C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch explained the meaning of Haggai 2:10–19: “The nation, in its attitude towards the Lord, resembles, on the one hand, a man who carries holy flesh in the lappet of his garment, and on the other hand, a man who has become unclean through touching a corpse. ‘Israel also possesses a sanctuary in the midst of its land,—namely, the place which Jehovah has chosen for His own abode, and favoured with many glorious promises. But just as no kind of food, neither bread nor vegetables, neither wine nor oil, is sanctified by the fact that a man touches it with his sanctified garment, so will all this not be rendered holy by the fact that it is planted in the soil of the land which surrounds and encloses the sanctuary of Jehovah. . . . For Israel is utterly unclean on account of its neglect of the house of Jehovah, like a man who has become unclean through touching a corpse. Everything that Israel takes hold of, or upon which it lays its hand, everything that it plants and cultivates, is from the very first affected with the curse of uncleanness; and consequently even the sacrifices which it offers there upon the altar of Jehovah are unclean.’” (Commentary on the Old Testament, 10:2:204–5.)
The uncleanness was the reason the land was so unproductive (see Haggai 2:15–17), but when the Jews had repented and begun the work on the temple (see v. 18), the curse was to be lifted and the Lord promised His blessing (see v. 19).
“The meaning of the figurative expression, to make Zerubbabel as a signet-ring, is evident from the importance of the signet-ring in the eyes of an oriental, who is accustomed to carry his signet-ring constantly about with him, and to take care of it as a very valuable possession. . . . Hence we obtain this thought for our present passage, namely, that on the day on which Jehovah would overthrow the kingdoms of the nations, He would make Zerubbabel like a signet-ring, which is inseparable from its possessor; that is to say, He would give him a position in which he would be and remain inseparably connected with Him (Jehovah), would therefore not cast him off, but take care of him as His valuable possession.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 10:2:213–14.)
|
|
|
A signet |
The prophecy is messianic, and Zerubbabel, in these scriptures, served as a type of Christ. Keil and Delitzsch explained: “In order clearly to understand the meaning of this promise, we must look at the position which Zerubbabel occupied in the community of Israel on its return from exile. For we may at the outset assume that the promise did not apply to his own particular person, but rather to the official post he held, from the fact that what is here predicted was not to take place till after the overthrow of the throne and might of all the kingdoms of the heathen, and therefore could not take place in Zerubbabel’s lifetime, inasmuch as, although the fall of this or the other kingdom might be looked for in the course of one generation, the overthrow of all kingdoms and the coming of all the heathen to fill the temple of the Lord with their possessions (ver. 7) certainly could not. Zerubbabel was (Persian) governor in Judah, and had no doubt been selected for this office because he was prince of Judah [Ezra 1:8], and as son of Shealtiel was a descendant of the family of David [see Haggai 1:1]. Consequently the sovereignty of David in its existing condition of humiliation, under the sovereignty of the imperial power, was represented and preserved in his appointment as prince and governor of Judah, so that the fulfilment of the divine promise of the eternal perpetuation of the seed of David and his kingdom was then associated with Zerubbabel, and rested upon the preservation of his family. Hence the promise points to the fact, that at the time when Jehovah would overthrow the heathen kingdoms, He would maintain and take good care of the sovereignty of David in the person of Zerubbabel. For Jehovah had chosen Zerubbabel as His servant. With these words the Messianic promise made to David was transferred to Zerubbabel and his family among David’s descendants, and would be fulfilled in his person in just the same way as the promise given to David, that God would make him the highest among the kings of the earth [Psalm 89:27]. The fulfilment culminates in Jesus Christ, the son of David and descendant of Zerubbabel [Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27], in whom Zerubbabel was made the signet-ring of Jehovah. Jesus Christ has raised up the kingdom of His father David again, and of His kingdom there will be no end [Luke 1:32–33]. Even though it may appear oppressed and deeply humiliated for the time by the power of the kingdoms of the heathen, it will never be crushed and destroyed, but will break in pieces all these kingdoms, and destroy them, and will itself endure for ever [Daniel 2:44; Hebrews 12:28; 1 Corinthians 15:24].” (Commentary, 10:214–15.)
Elder L. Tom Perry reminded us of the timelessness of Haggai’s injunction to “consider your ways” (Haggai 1:5).
“‘Now therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts; Consider your ways.
“‘Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.
“‘Thus said the Lord of hosts; Consider your ways.’ (Hag. 1:5–7.)
“I have read this great scripture and continue to be impressed with how clearly the Old Testament prophet describes the conditions of today. Almost daily we read of those who invest for little return. We eat food so refined that the nourishment is lacking. We witness the drink that can never satisfy the thirst for those who drink; the dressing for style, rather than warmth, comfort, and modesty; the high wages of the wage earner today which still do not satisfy or supply his needs.
“A noted historian several years ago summarized the reasons for the fall of Rome as follows:
“1. The breakdown of the family and the rapid increase of divorce.
“2. The spiraling rise of taxes and extravagant spending.
“3. The mounting craze for pleasure and the brutalization of sports.
“4. The decay of religion into myriads of confused forms, leaving the people without a uniform guide. [See Will Durant, The Foundation of Civilization (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1936), pp. 9–10; Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968), pp. 87–94.]
“Our unconquered appetites and consuming drive for material possessions appear to be leading us on a course so often repeated in history. Greed, lust, and desire historically have only led mankind to waste, destruction, and suffering.
“James E. Talmage has written:
“‘Material belongings, relative wealth or poverty, physical environment—the things on which we are prone to set our hearts and anchor our aspirations, the things for which we sweat and strive, ofttimes at the sacrifice of happiness and to the forfeiture of real success—these after all are but externals, the worth of which in the reckoning to come shall be counted in terms of the use we have made of them.’ (James E. Talmage, The Vitality of Mormonism, 1919, p. 352.)
“Isn’t this the time and isn’t this the hour to follow the admonition of the Lord to ‘consider your ways’?” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1973, p. 14; or Ensign, July 1973, p. 20.)
Take some time to consider your ways. List in your journal the ways you may need to change.
|
|
Esther’s beauty was such that it could catch and hold the eye of an oriental emperor accustomed to being surrounded by loveliness. Combined with physical charms were qualities of spirit that revealed that she had inward beauty as well. The qualities were loyalty, love, and dedication. Submissive yet courageous, yielding yet faithful, she was able to avert the intent of evil individuals determined to destroy her people. Indeed, she saved God’s covenant people from an intended extinction.
The story of Esther is sacred to the Jews and compelling to all because of her dauntless defense of her convictions and her people. Her name, in the Persian tongue, means “a star”; the many meanings of that symbol are most fitting.
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study the book of Esther.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual-study students should complete all of this section.)
The book of Esther opens with the description of a grand banquet in the opulent courts of Susa (called Shushan in v. 2), palace of the great Persian Emperor Ahasuerus. This name is a Hebrew transliteration of the Persian Khsyayarsha, better known in history as Xerxes (the Greek form of the name). Most scholars place the events recorded in the book of Esther between about 482 B.C. and 478 B.C.
One feature of the banquet was a large amount of wine which, according to one translation of verse 8, was to be given to the guests in any quantity they desired (see D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 415). That was probably the reason for Queen Vashti’s refusal to appear. After seven days of heavy drinking, the guests were probably quite inebriated, and she may have considered it beneath the dignity of the queen to parade before such a lot simply to display her beauty.
Queen Vashti’s refusal to obey a direct summons of the king may engender the sympathy of modern readers, but in an age when women were expected to be subservient and when an emperor had absolute power over life and death, her stubbornness is surprising. But the reaction of the assembly is not too surprising. The men present at the banquet immediately sensed that such independence of spirit in Vashti, who was unquestionably envied by the other women of the empire, would inspire a similar independence of spirit in their wives. If Vashti’s rebelliousness (as viewed by these men) were to go unpunished, they knew it would inspire similar responses in their wives. Therefore they pushed Ahasuerus for action, and particularly asked for a decree that could not be “altered” (v. 19).
C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch explained why that edict was important: “An edict issued by the king, entered among the laws of the Persians and Medes, and sealed with the royal signet [Esther 8:8], does not pass away, i.e. remains in force, is irrevocable [compare Daniel 6:9]. The counsellors press for the issue of such an edict, for the purpose of making it impossible to the king to take Vashti again into favour, lest they should experience her vengeance on the restoration of her influence.” (Commentary on the Old Testament, 3:3:331.)
The king agreed, the decree was made, and Vashti lost her place as queen, setting up the opportunity for Esther to be selected as one of the king’s wives and eventually to save her people.
Little is known for sure of the background of Mordecai. He was from the tribe of Benjamin, and his great-grandfather was apparently carried into captivity in the first Jewish deportation into Babylon. Some Jewish writers believe that he held a high office in the Persian hierarchy that gave him access to the court (see Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:3:337). It is apparent from the biblical narrative that He was a devout Hebrew with great faith in Jehovah. He was also courageous, forthright, and practical.
To his father’s brother was born a daughter who was given the name Hadassah, meaning “myrtle” in Hebrew. Throughout the sacred record, however, she is referred to by her Persian name, Esther, which means “star.” When her parents died, Mordecai adopted her and raised her in his home.
Esther was shown respect and deference because, in obedience to Mordecai’s charge to her, she had not admitted her Jewish lineage. A Jewish maiden would not have experienced such friendly treatment. Even after her selection as queen, she continued to keep her racial identity secret at the request of Mordecai (see v. 20).
Adam Clarke noted that “the most beautiful of all the young virgins of all the provinces of Babylon were to be selected; and these were taken out of all classes of the people, indiscriminately; consequently there must have been many who were brought up in low life.” (The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 2:810.) An extended period of beautification and preparation of these women would be required to prepare them for presentation to the king.
The statement that each virgin could take “whatsoever she desired” (v. 13) seems to imply that she could choose jewelry and other adornments in order to make the most favorable impression. Esther did not use this privilege, but took only what Hegai, the King’s chamberlain, or keeper of the harem, gave her. She must have been of remarkable loveliness to be chosen by the king.
It is also likely that the days of purification were used in training and education in the ways of the king’s court as well as in just physical purification.
Evidently, Mordecai, who served in the king’s court, heard of a plot to assassinate the king. Kings in ancient times were keenly aware of the risk of assassination and were well guarded. But Bigthan and Teresh “kept the door” (v. 21), or, in other words, were part of the king’s personal bodyguard and watched over his personal quarters. Their conspiracy to kill the king was especially dangerous because they had access to him. Mordecai somehow learned of this plot and reported it to the king through Esther. The account of Mordecai’s loyalty was inserted here because of the central part it plays later in the narrative.
There probably was nothing personal in Mordecai’s refusal to bow to Haman. “The only explanation offered is that Mordecai claimed exemption on the ground that he was a Jew. Probably the inference is justified that Haman was demanding not mere allegiance but worship, and Mordecai would not break the first commandment. . . . If fear of idolatry lay behind the refusal to bow down then no Jew would bow down, and Haman’s decision to take vengeance on the whole people becomes understandable. Similar acts of revenge involving wholesale slaughter are recorded by Herodotus (i. 106; iii. 79). . . . In Esther, however, anti-semitism proper makes its appearance with Haman’s express intention of wiping out the Jewish race. It might well seem incredible that one man’s injured pride should lead to such an irrational conclusion if it were not that history has produced an equally irrational attack on the Jews in the 20th century.” (Guthrie and Motyer, New Bible Commentary, pp. 416–17.)
Esther was queen for three years before Haman put his plot to work. This he did by first casting pur, or lots, to determine the day for carrying out the decree—first for the day of the month and then for the month of the year (see Guthrie and Motyer, New Bible Commentary, p. 417).
“Here the question is forced upon us, why the decree should have been so prematurely published. The scribes were summoned to prepare it on the thirteenth day of the first month. For this purpose, even though many copies had to be made in different languages, no very long time would be required in a well-appointed government office. As soon as the scribes had finished their work, the decree was sent out by the posts into all quarters of the realm, and would arrive in even the most distant provinces in three weeks at furthest. This would place almost eleven, and in the remotest parts about ten months between the publication and execution of the decree. What then was the motive for such an interval? Certainly so long a time could not be required for preparing to carry it out, nor is this hinted at in the text. . . . Nor could it be intended that the Jews should suffer a long period of anxiety. On the contrary, the motive seems to have been . . . to cause many Jews to leave their property and escape to other lands, for the sake of preserving their lives. Thus Haman would attain his object. He would be relieved of the presence of the Jews, and be able to enrich himself by the appropriation of their possessions (comp. p. 307). On the other hand, the providence of God overruling the event in the interest of the Jews, is unmistakably evident both in Haman’s haste to satisfy his desire for vengeance, and in the falling of the lot upon so distant a day. It was only because there was so long an interval between the publication of the decree and the day appointed by lot for its execution, that it was possible for the Jews to take means for averting the destruction with which they were threatened, as the further development of the history will show.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:3:348–49.)
“The Jewish people of the empire suffered deep shock when the terrible news was spread. And upon Esther there came a double burden: first the saddening news of the proclamation of death for her people; then the challenge to risk death herself to try to avert the general calamity.
“One of the hints of religiousness in the major characters of this story is given in Mordecai’s challenging statement to Esther, ‘. . . Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this? It appears that an overseeing Providence and purpose are implied, even though God is not explicitly mentioned here or elsewhere in this book.” (Ellis T. Rasmussen, An Introduction to the Old Testament and Its Teachings, 2:116.)
In other words, Mordecai told Esther that she was, perhaps, raised up at that time for that very purpose. It is also implied that Esther’s beauty was a gift from God to put her into the position where she could gain the favor of the king and save her people.
Two things in this verse make it of particular importance: Esther’s admonition to fast for three days and three nights, and her determination to endanger her life if need be to save her people. She had not been called to go in to the king for thirty days (see v. 11) and had most likely concluded that she did not please him and would be unwelcome if she went to him unbidden. Her words are an expression not of despair but of resignation in light of what she had determined she had to do (see Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:3:352–54). Oriental kings usually had numerous wives, who usually appeared only when summoned and did not take it upon themselves to see him. Going into the king’s presence without permission was a capital offense. Esther’s life was in jeopardy.
Esther seized advantage in her first favorable reception to enhance her good standing with the king and to bring about a strategic announcement of her request. But the first delay was not enough. She offered a second banquet the next night. What happened in those twenty-four hours was of the greatest importance (see chap. 6). The sudden desire of the king to read the records was obviously inspired from the Lord. The fasting and faithfulness of Esther and her people was productive and brought the Lord into the situation. With Haman’s powerful position and favor in the eyes of the king (see Esther 3:1–2), a direct accusation by Esther might well have been rejected had the king not been prepared beforehand.
The gallows was probably not an elaborate gallows, but rather a high pole or stake from which Mordecai could be hanged. Fifty cubits would be about seventy-five feet high. The higher the stake, the farther it could be seen. Haman’s intent seems to have been to make a real example of Mordecai.
“It was ironic that at that particular time the king availed himself of the services of Haman to gain from him a suggestion as to how to honor a certain deserving man. Haman didn’t know it was Mordecai for whom he was suggesting honors at the very time he had come to get permission to hang Mordecai!
“And thus it was that Haman had the frustration and humiliation of doing for Mordecai what Haman had hoped was to be done for himself; moreover, he had no opportunity to do what he had planned to do to Mordecai. Note that Haman’s own wife had ominously predicted dire fate would befall him if his opponent be ‘of the seed of the Jews.’” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 2:117.)
In the Middle East in ancient times, banquets were served to the guests as they reclined on pillows or couches. The Hebrew word translated in verse 8 as bed may have been a couch or a place of reclining. It seems likely that Haman rushed over to Esther at the banquet and fell on her couch to plead for his life. The king’s abrupt departure from the banquet may have been prompted by a desire to check Esther’s story with some of the other aides in the court. When the king returned to the banquet, he interpreted Haman’s position as a sexual advance and ordered his death. Thus, with no direct suggestion by Esther about what Haman’s punishment should be, circumstances brought about the swift execution of the man who could have proven, even after his fall from favor, to be a powerful enemy to the queen.
“The task of saving the rest of the Jews after Esther and Mordecai had been saved and exalted in the realm was complicated by the announced principle that any edict which had been issued in the king’s name could not be revoked. They had to devise a way to give the Jews authority to fight for their lives against those who would try to obey that first edict of death on the thirteenth day of Adar.
“Note the typical psychological phenomenon of the ‘conversion’ of many people to Judaism as they saw the growing power of the Jews in the realm! (verse 17).” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 2:117.)
The pur (plural purim), or lots, Haman used (see Esther 3:7) to determine the day of destruction for the Jews were now viewed by the Jews as a great blessing. The fact that the lot had fallen on a day some distance into the future allowed Esther and Mordecai time to save the people. In celebration of this great deliverance, the Jews initiated a new festival which is still observed among them to this day. It is called Purim for the lots cast by Haman and is a festival of great joy. A modern Jewish writer described its celebration:
“Purim is the nearest thing Judaism has to a carnival. It is another full-moon celebration, falling on the fourteenth of Adar, usually in February or March. The origin of the holy day is in the Book of Esther. The occasion is, of course, the famous deliverance of the Persian Jews from their Hitler-like oppressor, Haman. . . .
“The day before Purim is the Fast of Esther, a sunrise-to-sundown abstention. At sundown the synagogues fill up. The marked difference between this and all other occasions of the Jewish year is the number of children on hand. Purim is Children’s Night in the house of the Lord. It always has been, and the children sense their rights and exercise them. They carry flags and noisemakers, the traditional whirling rattles called ‘groggers,’ which can make a staggering racket. After the evening prayers the reading of the Book of Esther begins, solemnly enough, with the customary blessing over a scroll and the chanting of the opening verses in a special musical mode heard only on this holiday. The children are poised, waiting. The Reader chants through the first and second chapters and comes at last to the long-awaited sentence, ‘After these things, the king raised to power Haman the Agagite’—but nobody hears the last two words. The name ‘Haman’ triggers off stamping, pounding, and a hurricane of groggers. The Reader waits patiently. The din dies. He chants on, and soon strikes another ‘Haman.’ Bedlam breaks loose again. This continues, and since Haman is now a chief figure in the story, the noisy outbursts come pretty frequently. The children, far from getting tired or bored, warm to the work. They do it with sure mob instinct: poised silence during the reading, explosions on each ‘Haman.’ Passages occur where Haman’s name crops up several times in a very short space. The children’s assaults come like pistol shots. The Reader’s patience wears thin and finally breaks. It is impossible to read with so many interruptions. He gestures angrily at the children through the grogger storm and shoots a glance of appeal to the rabbi. This, of course, is what the children have been waiting for. The stag is down. Thereafter to the end it is a merciless battle between the Reader and the children. He tries to slur over the thick-falling ‘Hamans,’ they trip him every time with raucous salvos. He stumbles on to the final verse, exhausted, beaten, furious, and all is disordered hilarity in the synagogue. It is perhaps not quite fair to make the Reader stand in for Haman on this evening, but that is approximately what happens. . . .
“Beyond this gaiety, it carries four religious obligations: to hear the Megillah (the Scroll of Esther) read, to distribute largesse to the poor, to make a feast, and to exchange presents with neighbors and friends. This last institution is Shalakh Manos, the Sending of Gifts: things that can be eaten and drunk the same day.” (Herman Wouk, This Is My God, pp. 98–100.)
Having Mordecai near the king undoubtedly relieved the Jews of much oppression and gave them a favorable place in the empire. This good treatment may have been the reason most Jews elected to remain in Babylon rather than return to Judea when the opportunity came.
Mordecai’s situation is parallel in some ways to that in which modern followers of Jesus finds themselves. For Mordecai, Babylon was a physical reality. He was forced to function in the midst of an alien society. Today, Babylon, or the world, is a spiritual reality. The standards of the modern world are increasingly alien to the values held by the disciples of the Savior. The challenge is to keep the values intact and yet find ways, as did Mordecai, to be of service both to society and to Christ. Mordecai could not have done what he did if he had compromised his standards. Because he had prepared himself and was willing to become involved, he eventually became the chief minister of the king.
“The Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants tells us to be anxiously engaged in good causes. This suggests we can’t respond to all causes. We must be selective in the things we seek to do in terms of community and civic chores. But it also suggests we ought to devote a measure of our time and talent to do these things, for they do count on the scales of action as God sees it.
“The world is full of fads. The world is full of the marches of lemmings to the sea. The world is full of causes that lead into conceptual cul-de-sacs. Our task, therefore, is to be wise in the selection of good causes, using the scriptures and the modern prophets as our guide.
“Anne Morrow Lindbergh, in her book Gift from the Sea, says: ‘My life cannot implement in action all the demands of all the people to whom my heart responds.’ You will care for more things than you will be able to do things about. Wise selection of causes is one of the highest forms of the use of free agency that there is, and, really, one of the ways God tests our basic wisdom and our capacity to love.” (Neal A. Maxwell, speech delivered at Catalina Young Adult Conference, 23 Oct. 1972.)
Esther means a “star” in the Persian tongue. How fitting a title for a woman who may have been there “when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons [and daughters] of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:7). Though the text does not mention any foreordination or calling for Esther, Mordecai’s question, “Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14) suggests that Esther came into the world to save God’s covenant people.
F. M. Bareham wrote:
“We fancy God can manage His world only with great battalions, when all the time He is doing it with beautiful babies.
“When a wrong wants righting, or a truth wants preaching, or a continent wants discovering, God sends a baby into the world.” (In Spencer W. Kimball, Faith Precedes the Miracle, p. 323.)
What about you? Have you ever stopped to contemplate what your own foreordination may entail? Consider these thoughts from Elder Bruce R. McConkie: “We are quite well aware that Joseph Smith and Jeremiah and the apostles and prophets, the wise, the great, and the good were foreordained to particular ministries. But that is only a part of the doctrine of foreordination. The great and glorious thing about foreordination is that the whole House of Israel was foreordained, that millions upon millions—comparatively few compared to the total preexistent host—but millions of people were foreordained.” (Making Our Calling and Election Sure, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [25 Mar. 1969], p. 6.)
It may be that your calling is not to save a nation, or to lead one. But one thing is certain: you are here now not by chance but by design. If you will, you have a role to play in building the kingdom that will eventually produce Zion and prepare for the Second Coming of Christ.
|
|
|
Ancient ruins at David’s city, dating to Nehemiah’s time |
Nehemiah stands out as one of the noble men in the Old Testament. As he fulfilled a necessary mission in his day, he demonstrated the highest level of dedication and courage, both in the practical matter of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem and also in the spiritual matter of rebuilding the religious life of his people.
“The book of Nehemiah carries the history of the Jewish people down to a later date than any other of the avowedly historical works in the canon of the OT. Its interest is manifold, since it describes not only the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, but the reconstruction of the Jewish ecclesiastical organization; and as an authority for the events it relates, is first-rate, since it is largely based upon contemporary materials. And its value is augmented by its vivid portrayal of the noble character of Nehemiah himself. His career presents an exceptional combination of strong self-reliance with humble trust in God, of penetrating shrewdness with perfect simplicity of purpose, of persistent prayerfulness with the most energetic activity; and for religious faith and practical sagacity he stands conspicuous among the illustrious personages of the Bible.” (J. R. Dummelow, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible, p. 278.)
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study the book of Nehemiah.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual-study students should complete all of this section.)
Little is known about the background of Nehemiah except that he was a Jew born while the Jews were in exile. His age is not given, but it is likely that he was born after Cyrus had decreed the Jews could return to their homeland. As was explained in Notes and Commentary on Ezra and Enrichment J, only a small number of the Jews in exile chose to return. Nehemiah’s family must have been one of those that did not. They were probably of some influence, since Nehemiah was the cupbearer to King Artaxerxes (see Nehemiah 2:1). Assassination was a constant threat to a king, and poisoned food or drink was one of the most effective ways to accomplish it. The cupbearer, the one who ensured that the king’s food and drink were safe, was in a position of great trust and responsibility. Even though he was in Persia enjoying power and importance, Nehemiah had not forgotten his people and homeland. When he heard of their sad condition, he fasted and prayed for his people.
The favor in which Nehemiah was held by King Artaxerxes is evident not only in that he granted him permission to return but also in that he gave him guards, an escort, and a safe conduct through the lands on his return to Judah “beyond the river,” or west of the Euphrates. The king also granted him permission to use timber from the royal forests to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem as well as the gates and his own house.
Sanballat, the governor of Samaria, and the governors of other nearby areas opposed the plans of the Jews for Jerusalem and resented the protection given them by the Persian king. A deep bitterness had developed between the Samaritans and the Jews who had returned with Zerubbabel (see Notes and Commentary on Ezra 4). For Nehemiah to return with full power from the emperor to refortify Jerusalem was a great setback for the Samaritans, and they openly opposed it. Sanballat of Samaria led this group (see v. 19) and made it necessary for Nehemiah to arm those who worked on the walls of Jerusalem (see chapters 4 and 6).
Nehemiah wrote in such detail about his night reconnaissance and the later reconstruction of the walls of Jerusalem that we have a good idea of the actual sites of much that he reported. The accompanying map shows the estimated locations.
|
|
|
Nehemiah’s night walk |
See Maps, “Jerusalem,” for a comparison of Jerusalem in Nehemiah’s time with the city in Jesus’ time.
The names of the families assigned to repair the walls and gates are given in Nehemiah 3. But the leaders of the surrounding communities were angry that the Jews were fortifying Jerusalem and resuming their former religious practices. Sanballat, the governor of Samaria, was especially angry. But the plan they laid to attack and prevent the repair of the walls, now about halfway up (see Nehemiah 4:6), was frustrated by Nehemiah, who had those who guarded and those who labored arm themselves by day and by night (see vv. 21–22). Nehemiah’s encouragement to the Jews to defend their families and homes (see v. 14) is similar to the charge Moroni gave in the Book of Mormon (see Alma 43:46–47; 46:12).
Members of the Church earlier in this dispensation experienced similar opposition. Consider what President George Q. Cannon, who was a member of the First Presidency, said of the persecution in Utah around 1884: “It is very encouraging to think that, in the midst of the assaults which are being made upon the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the threats that are in circulation concerning us and our future fate, there is faith enough found in the midst of the people to pursue, without discouragement and without cessation, the great work which we feel that our Father has laid upon us. We have not been situated as we were in Nauvoo, when we finished our temple there, for then the workmen who labored upon it, were like the Jews in the days of Nehemiah, when they undertook to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, and had to labor a portion of the time at least, and a great portion of it too, with their instruments of labor in one hand, and weapons to defend themselves in the other. We were surrounded by mobs, and living in a constant state, it may be said of fear, because of the threats which were made and the combinations which were formed, and the attacks upon our outlying settlements in the burning of houses, in the destruction of grain, in the shooting down of cattle, and in the driving out of the people from their homes.” (In Journal of Discourses, 25:167.)
Nehemiah’s true greatness shines forth in these verses. One of the reasons the Jews were still in great poverty was the unrighteous oppression of the people by their previous rulers. Nehemiah could have glutted himself in the same manner, but instead he became angry about the over taxation (the king’s tribute), usury (interest), slavery, and the confiscation of private property.
Although his predecessors “were chargeable unto the people” (Nehemiah 5:15) or, in other words, laid a heavy burden upon the people, Nehemiah showed his greatness as the governor by not accepting a salary from the taxes of the people. He was wealthy and chose to serve without remuneration.
The righteous kings in the Book of Mormon had the same sense of public morality and worked for their livelihood rather than burdening their people (see Mosiah 2:14; 29:40).
Sanballat tried to lure Nehemiah into some “mischief” (Nehemiah 6:2) through an invitation for negotiations, but Nehemiah was not deceived. In fact, he was not even intimidated by Sanballat’s threat to report a Jewish rebellion to King Artaxerxes.
The wall was finished in fifty-two days (see v. 15), and watches were set to protect those who lived in the city. The walls were a protection, but they were also an important physical symbol of the establishment of the Jews as a people. The holy city became a unifying force as families were chosen by lot to come live in it (see Nehemiah 11:1–2). Sanballat and the other enemies of Judah fully understood the significance of the walls and of Nehemiah’s unifying leadership. That is why their opposition was so persistent.
Those who could not trace their genealogy, or who tried to hide it, were denied the priesthood. The same situation was reported in Ezra 2:62. “The Tirshatha” is a title for the governor (see Nehemiah 7:65, 70).
The reading of the law to the people by Ezra the scribe is of particular importance because it appears to have been the first time a synagogue, or a place to read and expound the scriptures, was established in Jerusalem after the return from Babylon. One Bible scholar commented on verse 8 as follows: “The Israelites, having been lately brought out of the Babylonish captivity, in which they had continued seventy years, according to the prediction of Jeremiah, [25:11], were not only extremely corrupt, but it appears that they had in general lost the knowledge of the ancient Hebrew to such a degree, that when the book of the law was read, they did not understand it: but certain Levites stood by, and gave the sense, i. e., translated into the Chaldee dialect. . . . It appears that the people were not only ignorant of their ancient language, but also of the rites and ceremonies of their religion, having been so long in Babylon, where they were not permitted to observe them. This being the case, not only the language must be interpreted, but the meaning of the rites and ceremonies must also be explained; for we find from ver. 13, &c., of this chapter, that they had even forgotten the feast of tabernacles, and every thing relative to that ceremony.” (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 2:781–82; see also Enrichment H.)
Once again, Nehemiah’s great goodness was demonstrated. He did not call for religious observance alone. He called on the people not only to join in a religious feast but to remember the poor, to share their joy in God’s goodness by charitable service.
Unless one understands the significance of the feast of Tabernacles, it may seem peculiar that Ezra chose this feast as so important. The commandments for its observance are found in Leviticus 23:34–44. Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained its peculiar significance:
“One of the three great feasts at which the attendance of all male Israelites was compulsory, the Feast of Tabernacles, was by all odds Israel’s greatest feast. Coming five days after the Day of Atonement, it was thus celebrated when the sins of the chosen people had been removed and when their special covenant relation to Jehovah had been renewed and restored. Above all other occasions it was one for rejoicing, bearing testimony, and praising the Lord. In the full sense, it is the Feast of Jehovah, the one Mosaic celebration which, as part of the restitution of all things, shall be restored when Jehovah comes to reign personally upon the earth for a thousand years. Even now we perform one of its chief rituals in our solemn assemblies, the giving of the Hosanna Shout, and the worshipers of Jehovah shall yet be privileged to exult in other of its sacred rituals.
|
|
|
A booth for the feast of Tabernacles |
“Also known as the Feast of Booths, because Israel dwelt in booths while in the wilderness, and as the Feast of Ingathering, because it came after the completion of the full harvest, it was a time of gladsome rejoicing and the extensive offering of sacrifices. More sacrifices were offered during the Feast of the Passover than at any other time because a lamb was slain for and eaten by each family or group, but at the Feast of Tabernacles more sacrifices of bullocks, rams, lambs, and goats were offered by the priests for the nation as a whole than at all the other Israelite feasts combined. The fact that it celebrated the completion of the full harvest symbolizes the gospel reality that it is the mission of the house of Israel to gather all nations to Jehovah, a process that is now going forward, but will not be completed until that millennial day when ‘the Lord shall be king over all the earth,’ and shall reign personally thereon. Then shall be fulfilled that which is written: [Zechariah 14:9–21]. That will be the day when the law shall go forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Manifestly when the Feast of Tabernacles is kept in that day, its ritualistic performances will conform to the new gospel order and not include the Mosaic order of the past.” (The Promised Messiah, pp. 432–33.)
Separated from the foreigners (strangers) in their midst, the Jews fasted, prayed, praised the Lord, and recited their long history and God’s blessings to them through the generations from Abraham to their own day. The Levites (the priesthood group) led in this, and their praise of God seems to have been stimulated by the study of the Law. Many references from Nehemiah 9 refer to historical events found in the five books of Moses:
1. Verse 6 refers to the Creation (Genesis 1).
2. Verse 7 refers to the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 11–17).
3. Verses 9–11 refer to the Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 1–14).
4. Verse 12 refers to the pillar of fire and smoke (Exodus 13:21–22).
5. Verses 13–14 refer to the giving of the Law (Exodus 20).
6. Verse 15 refers to the manna and to water from a rock (Exodus 16–17).
7. Verse 17 refers to the rebelliousness of the Israelites (numerous examples appear in Exodus and Numbers).
8. Verse 18 refers to the golden calf incident (Exodus 32).
The references to historical events continue in this fashion.
The Levites constantly referred to the scriptures in praising the Lord. It says much about the spiritual state of the returning exiles that the scriptures had become so neglected. And it says much about Nehemiah’s and Ezra’s wisdom that they sought to bring the people back into the covenant by using the scriptures.
In their new spirit of unity and national pride, the Jews made covenants to marry within Israel (see Nehemiah 10:30); keep the Sabbath (see v. 31); pay the “temple tax” instituted by Moses (see v. 32); make offerings (see vv. 33–35); dedicate the firstborn to the Lord (see v. 36); support the Levites and priests with their tithes (see vv. 37–38); and do all things necessary to sustain the temple (see v. 39). In other words, they covenanted to reestablish obedience to the law of Moses.
Nehemiah 10:38 mentions “the tithes of the tithes.” The Levites were to tithe their own support money for the priests. Originally the temple tax was half a shekel for everyone over twenty years of age (see Exodus 30:13). This amount was reduced to a “third part,” or one third of a shekel. Such offerings were still a practice in the days of Jesus (see Luke 21:1–4).
The phrase “and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law” (v. 29) was clarified by Joseph Smith to read: “And entered into an oath, that a curse should come upon them if they did not walk in God’s law” (JST, Nehemiah 10:29).
Lots were cast, and one of every ten families in Persia came to dwell in Jerusalem as a tithe to the Holy City.
Nehemiah cleared the synagogues of foreigners (see Nehemiah 13:1–3) and then cleansed the temple of a resident apostate (see vv. 4–9). He enforced controls on buying and selling on the Sabbath (see vv. 14–21) and further advised all Israel to marry wives from among their own people. Here was a man who left a position of great wealth and influence and out of love for God and his people dedicated his life to righteous purposes. Surely Nehemiah will be counted as one of God’s chosen servants.
In later times the Samaritans viewed Mount Gerizim as the holy mountain in opposition to the Jews who saw Jerusalem as the sacred place (see John 4:19–22). Although it is not specifically stated, the conflict mentioned here in Nehemiah was what led to the establishment of Mount Gerizim as the holy place of the Samaritans.
“After the return from the Babylonian captivity Gerizim again became a place of importance, as the center of the Samaritan worship. A certain Manasseh, son or grandson of Joiada, a priest in Jerusalem (Neh. 13:28), had married the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite. Refusing to put her away, he was expelled from the priesthood, and took refuge with the Samaritans, among whom, as a member of the high priestly family, he set up upon Mount Gerizim a rival temple and priesthood (John 4:20).” (Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Gerizim.”)
|
|
|
Mount Gerizim |
As you review the Old Testament, you will see evidence again and again that circumstances could have been better if the people had kept all their covenants. But you can also see that the Lord never loses control. Under what seemed almost impossible circumstances, the rulers, priests, and prophets of the Lord were told to do things calculated to supply all the blessings the covenant people were willing to receive. It did not appear possible to do what the Lord asked of the people through Zerubbabel, Ezra, or Nehemiah. Yet with a little prodding from the prophets, the confidence of the people increased and they forged ahead.
President Brigham Young said of having confidence during trials: “Confidence, brethren, CONFIDENCE in our God, and in each other. . . . I may say, that we have it already; but I think that an increase of faith in our God, and confidence in each other, is desirable. If we could obtain that faith and confidence in each other, and in our God, that when we ask a favor, we could do so with a full assurance and knowledge that we should receive, do you not perceive that it would lead us directly to do as we would be done by, in every transaction and circumstance of life. It would prompt us to do, not only as much as requested, but more. If your brother should request you to go with him a mile, you would go two; if he should sue you for your coat, you would give him your cloak also. This principle prompts us to do all we can to promote the interest of each other, the cause of God on the earth, and whatever the Lord desires us to do; makes us ready and willing to perform it at once.” (In Journal of Discourses, 1:115.)
There were the valiant who worked diligently, there were those who were fainthearted, and there were those who were bitter enemies of the Lord’s work and His servants. Yet the work was done and became a monument to the faith and courage of those who had accepted their responsibility.
The Jews in the day of Nehemiah took vows to renew their covenants that they and their fathers had taken. Some people today take their covenants lightly, an attitude on which President Joseph Fielding Smith had the following comment:
“We should fully and sincerely comprehend the fact that no requirement, request, or commandment made of man by the Father or the Son is given except for the purpose of advancing man on the path of eternal perfection. Never at any time has the Lord given to man a commandment which was not intended to exalt him and bring him nearer to eternal companionship with the Father and the Son. Too many of us receive the commandments of the Lord in the spirit of indifference or with the attitude of mind toward them that they have been given for the sole purpose of depriving us of some comfort or pleasure without any real profit to be derived in the observance of them.
“Every covenant, contract, bond, obligation, and commandment we have received by revelation and coming from the Almighty has the one purpose in view, the exaltation and perfection of the individual who will in full faith and obedience accept it. He that ‘receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned,’ [D&C 58:29] the Lord has said. Unfortunately there are a great many who receive covenants in that way.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:155–56.)
