Nehemiah’s Final Reforms

What this episode covers

“Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda“ (the church reformed, always reforming), has become a beloved slogan of the reformed church since it was first coined in a devotional book by the Dutch minister, Jodocus van Lodenstein in 1674. We might assume that he was talking about making major changes to the doctrine, worship, or government of the Church. But in his day, the church was already thoroughly reformed in each of those areas. Godfrey The great concern of ministers like van Lodenstein was not the externals of religion—as absolutely important as they are—but rather the internal side of religion. Van Lodenstein was a Reformed pietist and part of the Dutch Second Reformation. As such, his religious concerns were very similar to those of the English Puritans. They all believed that once the externals of religion had been carefully and faithfully reformed according to the Word of God, the great need was for ministers to lead people in the true religion of the heart. We are finally at the end of our sermon series in Nehemiah. After rebuilding the wall, revival and reformation broke out as the people of Israel sought to know and apply God’s Word. After weeks of celebration and repentance the people renewed their covenant commitment to honor God’s Law. But, within a few years of Nehemiah’s departure, they have compromised on every one of their vows. Our failure to reform in thought, word, and deed leaves us vulnerable to the secularization and desecration of God’s will. Read Nehemiah 13:23-31. The Secularization of Marriage (23-27) Israelite men married women from enemy nations (23). The Ammonites and Ashdodites were the same nations who were angry that Nehemiah was rebuilding the walls (Neh. 4:7). They sought to thwart the project. The Moabites and Ammonites were the offspring of Lot’s incestuous relationship with his daughters (Gen. 19:30-38), who were always at war with Israel. But, Nehemiah wasn’t upset that these marriages were mixed between two nations. The problem was that it revealed a pluralistic approach to worship. These marriages involved women who remained committed to serving their foreign gods. Mixed marriage was not the problem, secular marriage was the problem. Brown “Now, yesterday’s enemies have become today’s marriage partners. There is more than one way of destroying a city.” This led to children who could not even speak Hebrew (24); which implies they were not concerned with their Hebrew Scripture. Half of the children were only able to speak their mother’s language. This reality threatened Israelite identity and secularized the family. As Derek Kidner puts it, “A single generation’s compromise could undo the work of centuries.” Nehemiah’s response was not subtle or nuanced. He confronted them, cursed them, beat some of them, pulled out their hair, and made them vow to quit their practice (25). Keep in mind, Nehemiah was the governor, not the priest. His role was one of physical power whereas the priest possessed spiritual authority. It would be a mistake for a pastor—mmhmm…Mark Driscoll—to take a verse like this and use it to threaten physical violence against church members and fellow elders. This kind of reaction would have been outside the scope of Ezra’s power. That is why we don’t see him taking physical action against the people. Rather, he turns to God in prayer and fasting (pulling hair from his own head and beard Ezra 9:3). He led Israel in the corporate confession of their sin regarding marriage to foreign women (Ezra 9). The people responded with bitter weeping of their own and, many of them, separated from their wives (Ezra 10). But don’t mishear me. I’m not suggesting that Ezra’s reaction was superior to Nehemiah’s. I’m not suggesting that physical violence is bad and that our approach to conflict should always and only be spiritual. It depends upon your role. Nehemiah had the authority of the government. We don’t want police officers to pray for criminals, w

Distinct summary based on available episode metadata or transcript content.