A few years ago I was asked, “What scriptural authority do we have for relating the circumstances found in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah with Paul’s second epistle to Timothy?” Certainly, if one is looking for an explicit reference by the Apostle Paul, I am not aware of one. However, if we are to treat the Old Testament in this fashion — that it is an historic record with little bearing on the present day — much will be lost. The Apostle Paul does, however, plainly tell us, “Now all these things happened to them as types, and have been written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come” (1 Cor. 10:11 JND). “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning” (Rom. 15:4).
It is not a question of spiritualizing the Old Testament and making it out to describe the church, for this it does not. The church is the revelation of a mystery formerly hid in God (Eph. 3:9). Nevertheless, the principles upon which God acts remain the same throughout the ages. By this, however, I do not mean to suggest that God treats the church and Israel as being on the same ground — far from it. We, as members of the body of Christ, have been brought into a position of immense place and privilege that Israel never knew.
In Ezra and Nehemiah’s time things were in a state of ruin; we are likewise told concerning the Christian testimony that we live in a day “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Tim. 3:5). Christ’s power and authority has by-and-large been rejected. Christendom is very much the harlot (Rev. 2:20-22; Rev. 17:5) as Israel was (Hos. 2:5). In such a day, how do we walk? Are there no lessons to be gleaned from the Old Testament?
We could deny the ruin altogether and adopt the false position that Christianity is the leaven that will ultimately infiltrate the whole world, culminating in the glorious return of Christ as king. This is the position taken by the dominant theological systems of Christendom. Unfortunately, to make sense of what we see around us means reducing Christian truth to a weak gruel, devoid of all substance, and upon which no life can be sustained. That is to say, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Alternately, we can accept the state of things as declared in the Word of God (2 Tim., Jude, 2 Peter, Rev. 2-3, etc.), but then, what are we to do? Is it every man to himself; does everything rest with the conscience of the individual? Surely this is no different to what we find at the close of the book of Judges: “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (vs. 21:25). Of those that reject the first stand as given above, many will adopt this second position.
However, if God anticipates such failure, surely we can expect Him to provide guidance as to our conduct in such a day. Indeed He has! Do we not find direction as to both an individual and a collective walk (2 Tim. 2:22)? Is not this the same as what we find practically in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah? I have absolutely no doubt that it is. I would, however, add this one caveat. If we are to draw parallels between the present days of Christendom and the post-captivity history of Israel, then we must surely confess that the Laodicean character of this modern era corresponds to the condition of things found in the book of Malachi. And yet, let’s open our Bibles to Luke chapters one and two; do we not find a small but faithful remnant continuing on in the principles restored during Ezra and Nehemiah’s day? Can we not seek to be guided in like manner? “Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name” (Mal. 3:16).