The Failure of Davidic Hope? Configuring Theodicy in Zechariah and Malachi in Support of a Davidic Kingdom

Transcription

1 The Failure of Davidic Hope? Configuring Theodicy in Zechariah and Malachi in Support of a Davidic Kingdom By George Athas (Moore Theological College) george.athas@moore.edu.au Abstract This paper will examine how the books of Zechariah and Malachi provide a theodicy within the Book of the Twelve that exonerates Yahweh in the face of the failure to establish a Davidic kingdom after the exile. It will argue that the post-exilic restoration program did indeed intend the establishment of a Davidic kingdom, as could be expected from hints in earlier portions of the Twelve, and that indeed this hope is basic orthodoxy in the Twelve. However, this kingdom never materialised because of human failure, rather than divine failure. Firstly, Zerubbabel failed to establish the kingdom because of his own presumption in the face of Persian hegemony, rather than because of God s inability or unwillingness to deliver on the promises to David. Yet Zerubbabel s failure did not result in the abandonment of Davidic hopes. Rather, Zechariah argues for the promotion of the priesthood to a position of leadership as an interim measure. Zechariah sees God commissioning the priesthood to uphold popular Davidic hopes in face of foreign rule and of the crippling of the Davidic dynasty. These hopes were to be upheld through the building and maintenance of the temple notions that were traditionally Davidic tasks, and which Zerubbabel had originally been charged to complete. In this way, the priests and the temple cult become the means of maintaining hope for a Davidic kingdom in the face of foreign rule. However, the priesthood comes in for harsh criticism in Malachi. In the wider context of the Twelve, this serves as a bad report card on their ability to fulfil their interim leadership role in support of Davidic hope. This failure of the priesthood contributes to the dwindling likelihood of an independent Davidic kingdom. Despite this, the Book of the Twelve still holds out hope for a Davidic restoration. Yet, internal failure (Zerubbabel and the priesthood) and external pressure (foreign rule and oppression) ultimately turn this hope into apocalyptic eschatology, whereby the only way the Book of the Twelve sees for Davidic rule to be established is for Yahweh to step into history directly and deal with the people and circumstances himself. 1

2 Divine Intention: Hope for the Davidic Kingdom in the Twelve The final three books of the Book of the Twelve Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi originated in the post-exilic era. Early in this period, Judeans had begun migrating from Babylonia back to Jerusalem and its surrounding districts with the express purpose of rebuilding the city and its institutions. As Liz Fried has demonstrated, Jerusalem appears to have been founded in the early Persian Era as a specific temple-community, rather than a generic urban settlement. 1 This is why specific connections are made to Cyrus policy of repatriating conquered peoples and re-establishing the temples of previously captured deities. However, a temple community in Jerusalem could be no mere temple community. Judean temple ideology means that a temple community in Jerusalem was necessarily steeped in Davidic significance. The Jerusalem temple was inextricably linked to Davidic kingship. We see this connection best expressed in 2 Samuel 7, where the basic job description of the Davidic heir was builder (or maintainer) of Yahweh s temple. Indeed, the temple was the physical symbol of Yahweh s commitment to the Davidic dynasty. The fact that the temple was a permanent structure demonstrated that Yahweh was permanently committed to the Davidic dynasty in Jerusalem. The temple was not merely an immovable tabernacle. To have a temple, therefore, was to have Davidic monarchy. One could not really exist without the other. Thus, the reconstruction of Jerusalem as a temple community necessitated Davidic rule also. The fact that Zerubbabel, the grandson of one of Judah s last reigning kings, Jehoiachin, led the community in Jerusalem in rebuilding the temple is also quite telling. Zerubbabel was engaged not only in constructing a cultic installation, but in reinstituting a Davidic ideology in its old capital city. Furthermore, within this ideology, a Davidic king could not be subservient to another human king. Davidic ideology necessitated an independent kingdom of Judah (or Israel) for a Davidic king to rule. Thus, when Zerubbabel began building the temple to Yahweh in Jerusalem (Hag 1:14 15), he was not just constructing a cultic site, but rather erecting the central monument of Davidic rule in the region. In the Book of the Twelve, the concern to build the temple of Yahweh as a Davidic monument is seen most clearly in Haggai and Zechariah. However, it also occurs earlier. For example, Amos has Yahweh state: בּ יּוֹם ה הוּא אָק ים א ת סכּ ת דּו י ד ה נּפ ל ת ו ג ד רתּ י א ת פּ ר צ י ה ן ו ה ר ס ת י ו אָ ק ים וּב נ ית יה כּ ימ י עוֹל ם ל מ ע ן י י ר א ת שׁ א ר ית א דוֹ ם ו כ ל ה גּוֹ י ם א שׁ ר נ קר א שׁמ י ע ל יה ם נ א ם י הוה ע שׂ ה זּ את שׁוּ On that day, I will raise the booth of David that has fallen, repair its breaches, and raise its ruins; I will rebuild it as in days gone by, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations, over whom my name is called. Declaration of Yahweh, who will do this. 1 Lisbeth S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire, Biblical and Judaic studies 10 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004). 2

3 These verses presume the fall of the Davidic dynasty and its temple. The notions of a fallen booth, breaches, and ruins all recollect the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem in 586 BC, and the associated end of Judean statehood. Yet, the verses depict Yahweh as having the specific intention of reinstituting the Davidic dynasty. Haggai s prophecies are, therefore, of great significance, since they see Zerubbabel as the key player in the re-establishment of the Davidic dynasty. Not only does Zerubbabel relay the foundation of the temple (Hag 1:14 15), but Haggai identifies him as the signet ring on Yahweh s finger for that day when Yahweh shakes the heavens and the earth, and destroys the power of the nations (2:20 23). The image of the signet ring, in particular, stands as an ostensible reversal of the rejection of Zerubbabel s grandfather, Jehoiachin, and the reinstatement of the Davidic dynasty in the purposes of Yahweh (Jer 22:24 30). The rebuilding of the temple represented the recovery of Davidic ideology. Historically, one of the major problems of this, though, was the Persian Empire. Zerubbabel was a subject of the Persians. This stood against the basic tenor of Davidic ideology, which needed an independent Davidic king. The king ruled as Yahweh s son (2 Sam 7:14) and, as such, was subservient to Yahweh and Yahweh alone. Thus, Zerubbabel s reconstruction of the temple necessarily expressed the expectation that Yahweh would act to create a new, independent Davidic state at some point. The Failure of Restoration This independent Davidic state never materialised, though the opportunity to establish it certainly came rather quickly. The sudden death of Cambyses in 522 BC and the murder of his brother, Bardiya, threw the entire Persian Empire into turmoil. The Persians were still something of a political novelty at this time, having ruled for barely a generation or so. 2 Thus, the power vacuum left by the death of Cambyses and Bardiya threatened to sink the entire Persian juggernaut. The fact that approximately 19 rebellions subsequently broke out in all corners of the empire demonstrates just how tenuous the Persians grip on power was at this time. 3 So many simultaneous moves for independence would not have occurred if Persian power was seen as secure or inevitable. This turmoil gave Zerubbabel the chance to assert independence. While some question whether Zerubbabel did indeed make such a manoeuvre, the very fact that he had come from Babylon to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple (Ezra 2:1 2) strongly suggests otherwise. As mentioned above, Judean temple ideology implies that Zerubbabel s reconstruction efforts were a decisive move to reinstate Davidic ideology, which implies the eventual establishment of an independent Davidic state. In light of this, it is almost inconceivable that, at a time when other nations were asserting their own independence, Zerubbabel would not have done the same. 2 In making this remark, I take Cyrus conquest of Babylon in 539 BC as the beginning of the Persian Era. However, the rise of Cyrus to imperial prominence had been occurring for over a decade before this, ever since he defeated his grandfather, Astyages, King of Media, in 550 BC. 3 Darius mentions most of these rebellions in his account on the cliff face at Behistun, Iran. 3

4 The fact that Zerubbabel was probably a Persian appointee (Ezra 1:11 2:2) does not undermine the probability of his move towards independence. As the multiple rebellions across the empire demonstrate, most local leaders interpreted the Persian power vacuum as evidence that the empire was crumbling. Zerubbabel was, therefore, not so much rebelling as moving to secure his own power base during what seemed like the apparent collapse of Persian power. And yet, an independent Davidic kingdom failed. Despite his dubious account of events in the Behistun Inscription, Darius was able to seize power and consolidate his authority across the entire empire. At almost the exact same time that Haggai tells us Zerubbabel founded the temple (late 520 BC), Darius sent a delegation to Aryandes, the satrap appointed by Cambyses to govern Egypt, to aid in recovering the country from the rebel Petubastis IV. 4 Ezra also tells us that the peoples around Jerusalem reported the building activities to the Persians as rebellious, and that the satrap of Abar-Nahara, Tattenai (Persian: Ushtanu), arrived in Jerusalem to investigate the issue (Ezra 4:1 2; 5:3 4). 5 Given the Davidic ideology behind the temple building, and the broader political climate, it s not difficult to see why the building was viewed with suspicion. Although there is no specific source that states it, the most likely hypothesis is that Zerubbabel was arrested by the Persians, possibly by Tattenai, under the suspicion of rebellion. This scenario then explains the rhetoric throughout Zechariah 1 8. Zerubbabel is conspicuous by his absence in these chapters. The only words spoken to him are in Zechariah 4.6: ז ה דּ ב ר י הו ה א ל ז ר בּב ל ל א מר ח ול א בכ ל ל א ב ח י כּ י א ם בּ רוּח י אָמ ר י הו ה צ ב א וֹת This is the word of Yahweh to Zerubbabel: Not by force, nor by prowess, but by my Spirit, Yahweh of Ranks has said. These are terse words that form a rebuke, rather than an endorsement. But how could God be so eager to endorse Zerubbabel and his restoration program in Haggai, only to see Zerubbabel fall foul of the Persians and be rebuked in Zechariah, barely two months later? Was Yahweh wrong to endorse Zerubbabel? At first glance, Zechariah seems to represent an about-face from the divine attitude towards Zerubbabel expressed in Haggai. But on closer inspection of Zechariah s logic, it is not. 4 Olaf E. Kaper, Petubastis IV in the Dakhla Oasis: New Evidence about an Early Rebellion against Persian Rule and Its Suppression in Political Memory, in Political Memory In and After the Persian Empire, ed. Jason M. Silverman and Caroline Waerzeggers, Ancient Near East Monographs 13 (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2015), ; 5 Tattanai/Ushtanu is first mentioned in March 520 BC as the satrap of Abir Nahara. See Richard D. Parker, Darius and His Egyptian Campaign, AJSL 58 (1941): When the evidence of Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah is taken into consideration, Tattenai arrived in Jerusalem approximately ten months later. 4

5 First although Zerubbabel s activities were geared towards reinstating Davidic ideology and all its concomitant expectations, in line with divine sanction, Zechariah s prophetic word insists that Zerubbabel s methods for achieving this (force and prowess) were unwise. In moving towards independence from Persia, Zerubbabel had erred, and he had paid the price. It was not that Yahweh had failed, or that the future had been unforeseen. Rather, Zerubbabel had been presumptuous. The result was that there was now a very big challenge to Zerubbabel completing the temple. The fact that Zechariah stakes his prophetic reputation on the prediction that Zerubbabel s hands, which had started the temple, would be the hands to complete it (Zech 4:9) demonstrates the magnitude of the challenge. It makes perfect sense if, as is likely, Zerubbabel had been removed from Jerusalem. The Jerusalem community would have been thrown into utter confusion about how to deal with the situation. Would Zerubbabel return? Would he be executed, as all other rebels were? Without the Davidic descendant, should the community even continue building the temple at all? What were God s answers to these questions? Zechariah s vision argues that the Jerusalem community was not to resist the Persians. Darius forces are practically equated with the forces of Yahweh himself. This correspondence is achieved through the military imagery of horses, riders, and chariots in Zechariah 1 and 6. As the divine forces manoeuvre to and fro throughout the earth, so do the forces of Darius, putting down rebellions and consolidating Persian hegemony. Yahweh even says that his divine forces have placed (literally rested : ה ניחוּ ) his Spirit on the land of the north seemingly meaning Persia. If Yahweh was going to achieve restoration of his covenant community by his Spirit, this is seemingly an endorsement of Persia as his agents. And yet, despite this correspondence between Darius regime and Yahweh s will, Yahweh is said still to be intensely passionate for Zion (Zech 1:14). This is not merely a statement of Yahweh s geographical preference for Jerusalem. Rather, it is a statement of profound commitment to the Davidic dynasty. Zion is the name of the original fortress captured by David, and in which he took up residence as the king of a unified Israel. The term is replete with Davidic significance. Thus, the logic of Zechariah s vision is that Yahweh still stands by Zerubbabel and the Davidic dynasty with the intention of seeing an independent Davidic kingdom, but he also stands behind the Persian regime of Darius. It was not for Zerubbabel to pursue policies of force or prowess, but rather for Yahweh to act by his Spirit in his own timing. Keeping Hope Alive With Yahweh s commitment to Zion and the Davidic dynasty confirmed, but Zerubbabel apparently removed by the Persians, the natural question for the Jerusalem community was what to do about the temple. The answer in Zechariah s vision was that the High Priest, Joshua, would serve as acting Branch in Zerubbabel s absence. He would continue the reconstruction of the temple. This explains why Zerubbabel receives so little attention in Zechariah s vision, whereas the limelight falls squarely on Joshua. In Zechariah 3, Joshua is invested with leadership over the community. As Jason Silverman has shown, this is not his installation to the position of High 5

6 Priest. Joshua is already identified as such at the outset of the vision. Furthermore, Ezra tells us that he was already functioning as High Priest at an operational altar before the foundation of the sanctuary was laid. Rather, Silverman argues, Joshua is being vetted for the position of community leader and accordingly clothed in the regalia of the governing elite. Joshua s leadership is then underscored in the epilogue to Zechariah s vision, in which Joshua is crowned (Zech 6:9 15). This is a very suggestive act, since the crowning of Joshua is seen as somehow pointing to the crowning of the Branch. The term Branch is specifically associated with the Davidic ruler. It does not denote a single individual to the exclusion of all others, but rather an office occupied by one person at a time, namely the Davidic heir who rules Yahweh s covenant people on David s throne. It is inconceivable that the Jerusalem community did not see Zerubbabel, the Davidic heir in direct line for the throne, as the Branch. Yet, it is Joshua who is crowned, demonstrating his promotion to community leadership. While some commentators see this as a promotion to sharing rule over the community with Zerubbabel in a diarchy, 6 this actually undermines the entire purpose of the restoration program and its specifically Davidic ideology. Rather, the promotion of Joshua is supposed to be a temporary measure. He is made acting Branch in Zerubbabel s absence. He is not a replacement for Zerubbabel, nor a co-equal ruler, but a deputy brought in as a surrogate for Davidic hopes. As mentioned, the crowning of Joshua points to the crowning of the Branch. On the one hand, this probably looked back to a crowning of Zerubbabel in late 520 BC. Wellhausen suggested that this crowning episode in Zechariah 6:9 15 was originally about Zerubbabel, but later redacted to focus on Joshua after Zerubbabel failed to become king. 7 However, this misunderstands the historical situation. It is likely that Zerubbabel was indeed crowned king in late 520 BC, only to be removed by the Persians just weeks later. The crowning of Joshua deliberately looks back to this, but it does not subvert the claim of Zerubbabel to be the Branch who builds the temple. On the contrary, since Joshua is Acting Branch, the crown placed on his head expresses hope that the actual Branch Zerubbabel, the Davidic descendant would return to complete the temple, as Zechariah insisted (Zech 4:9). The placement of the crown (or another crown, depending on the reconstruction of the text at this point) within the rising temple structure also suggests this. Joshua would build the temple in his place (Zech 6:12) that is, in the place of the Branch, until the Branch returned. The commissioning of Joshua, therefore, is not a subversion or reconfiguration of Davidic hope that moves the temple out of royal ideology and into the purely priestly sphere. Rather, it represents the expression of hope that the Davidic descendant, whose job it was to build Yahweh s temple, would return to complete the task. Until Zerubbabel returned, Joshua would fill his shoes as acting Branch. 6 For example, Frank Moore Cross, A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration, JBL 94, no. 1 (1975): 4 18; Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1 8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 38 39; Mike Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah, JSOTSupp 130 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), ; Jeremiah W. Cataldo, A Theocratic Yehud?: Issues of Government in a Persian Province (T&T Clark International, 2009), Julius Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1898),

7 All this means that the Book of the Twelve does not curb Davidic hope. On the contrary, it seeks ways to promote it, even in the face of very difficult historical circumstances that threatened to snuff it out. This is an important realisation, since the Second Temple Era, in which the Book of the Twelve was finally compiled, did not see sustained Davidic leadership. Zerubbabel himself almost definitely returned to Jerusalem. The figure of the humbled and liberated king returning to Jerusalem in Zechariah 9:9 16 is almost certainly a panegyric celebrating Zerubbabel s return. Ezra also implies that Zerubbabel was present at the dedication of the temple in 516 BC. Thus, Davidic hopes were kept alive. But after Zerubbabel, power quickly slips from the Davidic family. From the evidence of a clay bulla, it would appear that Zerubbabel s son-in-law, Elnathan, who married Zerubbabel s daughter, Shelomith (1 Chron 3:19), was appointed governor (פּ ח ה) in Jerusalem, but there is no evidence of any other Davidic power from that time on. The genealogies in 1 Chronicles 3:19 24 give us the names of Zerubbabel s descendants, perhaps right down to the arrival of Alexander. But while these generations of Davidides were known, power or leadership is ascribed to none of them. The Pivotal Failure of the Priesthood If, then, the Book of the Twelve advocates continued hope for the restoration of a Davidic kingdom as God s express will, how does it deal with the fact that a Davidic kingdom did not materialise with either Zerubbabel or the generations of his descendants? If the advice to Zerubbabel was Not by force, nor by prowess, but by my Spirit, what was Yahweh s Spirit actually doing? Why was it seemingly inactive? Three points may be brought to bear on this. First, the demise of the Davidic royal family was concomitant with the rise of the priestly caste in Jerusalem. This began with the High Priest Joshua, but continued, it seems, unabated throughout the remainder of the Second Temple Era. As time passed, the priests gained and sustained a hold on power in Jerusalem. Priests were no longer mere aides to royalty, but rather took a more central role in the life of the Jewish community. And as Jerusalem itself grew from a small temple community to a proper urban centre and provincial capital, so the power of the priesthood grew. This is also demonstrated by extra-biblical evidence, such as the corpus from the Judean enclave at Elephantine, intertestamental literature, and Josephus. Second, when Joshua is commissioned to lead the Jerusalem community in Zerubbabel s absence, he is admonished to obey Yahweh in order to enable Zerubbabel s return (Zech 3:6 8): ו יּ ע ד מ ל אַתּ ה אַ ך י הו ה בּ יהוֹשׁ ע ל אמ ר כּ ה אָ מ ר י ה ו ה צ ב אוֹת א ם בּ ד רכ י תּ ל ך וא ם א ת מ שׁ מ רתּ י ת שׁמ ר ו ג ם תּד י ן א ת בּ י ת י וגם ה גּ דוֹל אַ תּ ה ו ר עי תּ שׁמ ר א ת ח צר י ו נ תתּ י ל ך מ ה לכ ם י ך ה יּ שׁב ים ל פ נ י ך כּ י אַ נשׁ י מוֹפת בּ ין ה ע מד ים ה א לּ ה שׁ מ ע נ א י הוֹשׁ ע ה כּ הן ה מּ ה כּ י ה ננ י מב יא א ת ע בדּ י צ מ ח 7

8 The messenger of Yahweh warned Joshua, Thus has Yahweh of Ranks said: If you walk in my ways, and if you execute my commission, you will both govern my house and watch my courts, and I will give you leeway among those standing here. Listen, O Joshua, High Priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you. For they are symbolic men, for I am going to bring my servant, the Branch! The role of Joshua and his priestly colleagues is to follow the ways of Yahweh and guard the temple as the way to embody symbolically the return of the Branch. In other words, the moral rectitude of the priests is necessary for the fulfilment of Yahweh s purposes, which centre on the Davidic descendant. Third, it is precisely the failure of the priests that the Book of the Twelve identifies as the main issue in the seeming delay of restoration. Priests receive rebuke at various points throughout the Twelve and, on the whole, are characterised quite negatively. This characterisation begins in Hosea 4:4, where Yahweh states: אַ ך א ישׁ אַל ירב ו ע מּ א שׁ י ו אַ ל י וֹכח ך כּ מ ר יב י כ ה ן Oh let no one dispute, and let no one rebuke, that my dispute is with you, O priest! Joel 2:17 urges the priests to use their mediatory role to entreat Yahweh for mercy: בּ ין ה אוּ ל ם ו ל מּ זבּ ח רוּ ו י אמ י ב כּ וּ חוּס ה י ה ו ה ע ל ע מּ ך ל מּ ה י א מ רוּ ב עמּ ם י הכּ הנ ם י אַיּ ה א לה יה ם מ שׁ רת י י הוה ו אַל תּתּ ן נ ח ל ת ך ל ח ר פּ ה ל מ שׁ ל בּ ם גּוֹ ים Between the porch and the altar let the priests weep ministers of Yahweh and let them say, Have mercy, O Yahweh, upon your people, and do not put your estate to scorn a byword among nations! Why let them say among the peoples, Where is their God? The implication here is that the priests, rebuked earlier in Joel 1:13, are not adequately performing their role. Their obstinacy is then embodied in the attitude of Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, in Amos 7:10 17, who actively opposes the divinely sanctioned prophetic message. 8

9 Yet the harshest words towards the priesthood come in Malachi the last prophet in the Book of the Twelve. This is the note on which the Book of the Twelve finishes. In this regard, Malachi is perhaps more significant than the previous prophets mentioned. Unlike Hosea and Amos, who lived centuries earlier when the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were still a reality, Malachi directly addresses priests within the post-exilic situation, when there was no local, native kingdom. 8 The chastising of the priests begins in Malachi 1:6: בּ ן י כבּד ו א ם אָב אָב ו א ם א דוֹנ ים אָ נ אָמ ר י הו ה צ ב וע ב ד א ד נ יו אָ נ י אַ יּ ה כ בוֹדי י אַ יּ ה מוֹ ר אי ם אוֹת ל כ ה כּ ה נ י ם בּוֹז י שׁ מי Son honours father, and servant his master, So if I am father, where is my honour? And if I am master, where is my respect? Yahweh of Ranks says to you, O priests, who despise my name. Thus begins the tirade against the priests that is sustained practically throughout all of Malachi. In Malachi 1:11 12, the honour that the priests of Jerusalem s temple give to Yahweh is compared to the honour that is accorded to Yahweh s name by other nations. The verdict is that the nations do a better job honouring Yahweh s name that his own priests in Jerusalem do. In Malachi 2:1 2, the priestly attitude towards Yahweh draws rebuke and curse. ו ע תּ ה א ל יכ ם ה מּ צו ה הזּ א ת ה כּ ה נ ים א ם ל א ת שׁ מ עוּ ו א ם ל א ת שׂ ימ וּ ע ל ל ב לת ת כּ בוֹד ל שׁ מ י אָ מ צ ב אוֹת ו שׁ לּ חתּ י ב כ ם א ת ה מּ אר ה ו אָרוֹת י א ת בּ ר כ וֹ ת יכ ם ו ג ם אָרוֹ ת י ה כּ י א י נכ ם שׂמ ים ע ל ל ב ר י ה וה Well now, this directive is to you, O priests: If you do not listen, if you do not take it to heart to give honour to my name, says Yahweh of Ranks, I will send against you the curse. I will curse your blessings, and curse it again, because you do not take it to heart. The implication here is that the moral failures of the priesthood are the basis for the lack of blessing in God s covenant community. It is not that God has failed to make good on his promises to raise the fallen tent of David, 8 It is entirely plausible that some of the words directed towards the priests in Hosea are the words of a later, post-exilic redactor. Nonetheless, this does not take away from the fact that Hosea (and Amos) addressed a preexilic situation. Malachi s words, therefore, are more directly relevant to the context of a covenant community that lacks a Davidic king. 9

10 or changed his mind. Indeed, God says in Malachi, I, Yahweh, have not changed! (Mal 3:6). Rather, it is the wickedness of the priests, that have forced God to bring judgement, rather than blessing. The priests were supposed to keep the covenant nation in a godly holding pattern until God finally acted to restore a Davidic kingdom. This dynamic was specifically flagged with the commissioning of Joshua as acting Branch in Zechariah 3. But the priests failed in this task. Thus, in Malachi 3:1 4, the hopes for restoration are put into the perspective of judgement: כּאשׁ ה נ נ י שׁ לח מ ל אָ כ י וּפ נּ ה ד ר ך ל פנ י וּפ ת א ם י בוֹא א ל ה י כ ל וֹ ה אָ דוֹן א שׁ ר אַתּ ם מ ב ק שׁ ים וּמ ל א שׁ ר אַתּ ם ח פ צ י ם ה נּ ה ב א אָמ ר י הו ה צ ב א וֹת וּמ י מ כ ל כּ ל א ת יוֹם בּוֹ א וֹ וּמ י ה ע מ ד בּ ה ר אוֹ אַ ך ה בּר ת י א תוֹ כּ י הוּ מ צ ר ף וּ כ ב ר ית מ כ בּ ס ים ו י שׁ ב מ צר ף וּמ ט ה ר כּ ס ף ו טה ר א ת בּ נ י ל ו י ו זקּ ק א ת ם כּ זּה ב ו ככּ ס ף ו ה י וּ ל יהוה מ גּ ישׁ י מ נח ה בּ צ ד ק ה ו ע ר ב ה ל יהו ה מ נח ת י הוּד ה ו יר וּ שׁל ם כּ ימ י עוֹ ל ם וּכ שׁנ ים ק ד מ נ יּ וֹת See, I am sending my messenger, and he will trace the way before me. Suddenly the master, whom you are seeking, will come into his palace the messenger of the covenant whom you are desiring. See him coming, says Yahweh of Ranks. But who can contain the day of his coming? Who can stand at his appearing? For he will be like refining fire, like launderers soap. He will take his seat while refining, purifying silver. He will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them like gold and silver, that they may become righteous bearers of offering to Yahweh. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to Yahweh, as in days of old, and yesteryear. We see here that Yahweh fully intends to meet the community s expectations. A masterly figure will come with covenantal significance, enter a palace and sit himself down. But this will be a moment of judgement, not blessing. Indeed, only with the enactment of judgement can blessing ensue. Conclusion We see, then, that the Book of the Twelve continues to hold out hope for the restoration of a Davidic Kingdom. Hope revolves primarily around the figure of the Branch. In the first instance, this figure is identified with Zerubbabel in Haggai and Zechariah during the early Persian Era. But a Davidic kingdom under Zerubbabel ultimately failed to materialise. This failure is not blamed on God, but rather on Zerubbabel himself. He is reprimanded for the presumptuous way he sought to establish this Davidic kingdom, going against Yahweh s intentions of using the Persians to facilitate restoration. Zerubbabel s failure, however, did not scuttle Davidic hope. Rather, it was temporarily focused on the priesthood as a surrogate. The High Priest, Joshua, was commissioned to be Acting Branch in the wake of Zerubbabel s removal by the Persians. He was expressly commanded to lead his priestly colleagues in following God s ways, in order to facilitate the fulfilment of God s purposes regarding Davidic hope. But the priesthood fails in this task. Throughout the Twelve, priests are 10

11 condemned for their moral and cultic failure, receiving sustained criticism in Malachi. Thus, God has not failed or changed his mind. He is still committed to fulfilling Davidic expectations. It is, rather, the human leadership of his people that has caused the delay in fulfilment. The result is that God will still act to bring about a Davidic kingdom, but this will be concomitant with an act of judgement. In the longer term, this situation contributed to the development of eschatological and apocalyptic messianic hope. As the centuries wore on, the likelihood of a Davidic kingdom becoming a reality grew smaller and smaller. The Persians, generally accorded respect in wider biblical depiction, gave way to the empire of Alexander, and the subsequent kingdoms of the Diadochi, and the goal of an independent Davidic state began to look politically impossible. Yet, the Book of the Twelve, which was most likely put together in the early Hellenistic Era, 9 encouraged continued hope that God would still act, despite the imperial machinations of foreign powers. God was still to be trusted. What he had said through the former prophets had come to pass, so he would make good on his promise to bring about a Davidic kingdom. But since normal political processes brought nothing but disappointment, and the nation s priestly leaders were not to be trusted, God himself would have to step into history to bring about the restoration. The emergence of apocalyptic thinking in the later Second Temple Period is testament to this development. 9 I based this primarily on the presence of allusions to Alexander s siege of Tyre in 332 BC (Zech 9:3), and Ptolemy I s capture of Jerusalem in 301 BC (Zech 14:2). 11