14
Sep
2009

The Greater Nehemiah and Temple Cleansing

/
/
5
/
14 Sep 2009

There seems to be a typological prediction of Christ’s cleansing of the Temple in the life of Nehemiah. In Nehemiah 13 we read of Nehemiah finding Tobiah living in the Temple, specifically in the room where the money was stored. Nehemiah throws Tobiah out, together with his furniture. There seems to be a parallel in the first Temple cleansing in the ministry of Jesus (John 2:12-22). Jesus finds those who are making the house of God into a financial enterprise, so he drives them out and turns over their furniture.  But it is also interesting to note that Nehemiah gives the Temple a second cleansing after he drives Tobiah and his furniture out. This could be a type of the second Temple cleansing recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, or it could be a type of the real cleansing of the Temple in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

In John 2, Jesus says, “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will rebuild it.” John tells us, “He was speaking of the Temple of His body.”  In the death of Jesus the true Temple is destroyed. The sin of the people who He has raised up to be the New Covenant Temple were laid on Him, and in His death He has cleansed them from their sins. The beauty of the greater Nehemiah is that He continually cleanses the Temple, as He sanctifies His people through that death and resurrection.

About Post Author

Nick Batzig is the senior pastor of Church Creek PCA in Charleston, SC and an associate editor for Ligonier Ministries. Prior to serving at Church Creek, Nick was a pastor at Wayside PCA on Signal Mountain, TN. Formerly, Nick served as the founding pastor of New Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Richmond Hill, GA and as the editor of Reformation21 and the Christward Collective--sites of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. He frequently writes for Tabletalk Magazine, Reformation 21, He Reads Truth, and the Christward Collective. Nick was also the host of East of Eden, a podcast devoted to the Biblical and Systematic Theology of Jonathan Edwards. You can friend him on Facebook here and follow him on Twitter @nick_batzig

5 Responses

  1. Matt Holst
    Reply

    Nick

    Let me play devil’s advocate to your Mr Typology for one moment 😉

    If what you have said is true (and I’m not disagreeing), the one question I have is , so what? You know I’m a little wary of finding types everywhere, so I want to know what you are going to do with that?

    Thanks un anticipation.

    Matt

  4. Nicholas T. Batzig
    Reply

    Matt,

    Let me play Jesus’ advocate and ask you what you think He meant when He said that “a greater than Solomon is here,” and “One greater than the Temple is here?”

  5. Blake W
    Reply

    Hi Matt,

    Rarely do I post replies or launch into polemics; this is the first time I’ve visited ‘feedingonchrist’…regardless, I had to address your challenge to Batzig.

    I cannot speak on behalf of Mr. Batzig, however, I will convey to you the benefit of embracing the encouraging (and obvious theme/reality) of Nehemiah’s role in the typology/Advent discussion.

    When preaching through the narrative of Nehemiah, the Church is more able to root the historical events in the Gospel. Consequently, they are able to rest in the finished work of Christ, in the midst of their battle with temptation, sin, and godly labors. That is to say, they are reminded of their own sinful disposition, but find hope b/c one more successful, than Nehemiah, has come. Without the referenced typology the book seems somewhat amiss.

    Without this variable it becomes very easy to merely preach this book in such a manner where God’s people understand this book as a lesson in overcoming discouraging obstacles with God’s help, at best. Not the worst move, but we are to consider the full counsel of God’s Word. Not suppress it (intentional or not).

    Or, at worst, this narrative is nothing more than a arrow in the quiver of prosperity gospel advocates i.e. God is here for me to help me, in time and space, for my self-preservation and blessing. A gospel which is frightfully lean regarding a healthy focus on our eschatological hope.

    I would argue that without the referenced typology, the Holiness of God (championed by His Son) no longer takes center stage. An attribute which needs to be reinforced from the pulpit, or lectern, whenever possible.

    Incidentally, Batzig is not alone in his endeavor to highlight Nehemiah’s typological prediction. At least one other scholar (I am aware of and his name escapes me at present) has highlighted the physical weaponry (taken up with the trowel) as a picture of cleansing/sanctifying the vulnerable community (whose whole existence hinges upon Temple purity) from carnal corruption. This would, of course, be in addition to practical measures to physical defend themselves from rumored military attacks. What did Jesus come to bring? A sword. What comes out of the mouth of Christ in John’s vision i.e. Revelation? A sword…

    The scholar concludes, as I suspect would Batzig, that for all of Nehemiah’s victories, labor to purify the community/Temple, sacrifices, prayer, faithfulness…he could not utterly, and completely, purify God’s covenant people. Hence, a greater leader was needed. However, I would add, Nehemiah’s labor is not in vain. He establishes the foundation of post-exilic Jerusalem, necessarily, for the coming of Christ.

    Certainly, there are some writers who are fanciful in fabricating Mr. Typology, and one might even consider the ‘sword’ notion fanciful. However, I do not think there is any question that Batzig has highlighted something essential when preaching through the book of Nehemiah. It hardly seems he is forcing some sort of witty thought into the Bible.

    Thanks for the insightful article, Nick Batzig.
    Gentlemen, I wish you well.

Leave a Reply