Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Thursday, March 13, 2014
The Bible, Herodotus, and Persia
Taken from: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/212-herodotus-and-the-bible
....
After the fall of Babylon, the Hebrews were under Persian control for two centuries. Cyrus, a benevolent Persian monarch, had issued a decree that allowed the Jews to return to their homeland to rebuild their temple. The construction project was initiated but it eventually fell into disarray. Finally, after more than fifteen years, the work was resumed. There was, however, at first, mild opposition.
Did the Jews have regal authority for the project? A search was made for Cyrus’ original decree of authorization. When the document was located, oddly, it was not found in Babylon or Susa, as might be expected, since this was where the Persian kings usually resided, but in Achmetha (Ecbatana) in the province of the Medes (Ezra 6:2).
There is a passage in Herodotus, however, which appears to indicate that, contrary to the usual custom, Cyrus held his court in Ecbatana, hence, kept his archives there (i.153). As Professor George Rawlinson of Oxford University observed, “this is one of those little points of agreement between the sacred and the profane which are important because their very minuteness is an indication that they are purely casual and unintentional” (1873, 196).
When the original document of Cyrus was located, Darius, the then-reigning monarch, issued a decree authorizing the resumption of work on the temple, even providing expense money from “tribute” collected in the provinces “beyond the [Euphrates] river” (Ezra 6:8). According to Herodotus, Darius was the first Persian king to extract such tribute money (iii.89). Moreover, the king warned that if any should alter his decree, “let a beam be pulled out from his house, and let him be lifted up and fastened thereon” (Ezra 6:11). This was no idle threat, for, as Herodotus records, at the second conquest of Babylon, Darius crucified about three thousand citizens of the city (iii.159).
In the book of Esther one learns that the maidens of the royal harem could only go unto the king when their “turn” came (Esther 1:12), and any violation of this procedure could incur the death penalty (4:11). Herodotus says: “In Persia a man’s wives sleep with him in their turns” (iii.69), and invasion of the king’s privacy was punishable by death (iii.72, 77).
Mordecai, Esther’s cousin, had foiled a plot against the life of king Ahasuerus (Esther 2:21-22), and an account of that act of patriotism had been written in “the book of records” (6:1). Herodotus records that in Persia a list of “the king’s benefactors” was maintained with a view of returning such kindnesses (viii.85).
Examples like those of the foregoing paragraphs could be multiplied many times over. Truly, Herodotus provides unwitting testimony to the accuracy of the Old Testament. The precision of the ancient Scriptures is utterly amazing. The Bible passes every test of credibility. Let us honor it as the Word of the living God.
....
Esther's Prayer
On retreat with the Bishop and priests of the Diocese at beautiful Lake Junaluska, immersed in natural beauty in all its autumnal glory, this would not seem to be the right setting for anxiety of any kind. On the other hand, perhaps, perhaps the contrast makes the anxieties of life appear that much more stark. After all, didn't our retreat master himself begin by reminding us that we bring our demons with us on retreat?
Coincidentally - or providentially - the scripture reading in today's Office is Esther 14:1-9, the famous "Prayer of Queen Esther," when, after hearing her Uncle Mordecai's news about the impending thereat to the survival of the Jewish People, Queen Esther, seized with mortal anguish, had recourse to the Lord. To highlight the seriousness of the crisis, the text tells us she took off her splendid garments (she was a queen, after all) and put on garments of distress and mourning. That's a nice nostalgic reminder that there once was a time - until quite recently in fact - when people dressed appropriately for the occasion, before the current tyranny of casual dress overwhelmed everything, driving yet one more nail in the coffin of civilized living.
Esther's prayer is desperate, for the situation in which the Jews found themselves thanks to Haman's genocidal ambitions, was indeed a desperate one. It is also poignantly universal, expressing the sensibility of everyone who has ever felt threatened, alone, and abandoned.
"My Lord, our King, you alone are God. Help me, who am alone and have no one to help but you, for I am taking my life in my hand. ... O God, more powerful than all, hear the voice of those in despair. Save us from the power of the wicked, and deliver me from my fear."
Esther's prayer is one which could be prayed by anyone is serious angst about any impending evil - personal and private or political and public. The threat immediately facing the Jewish People was, of course, a political one. Hence the significance of Esther calling God Israel's King - presumably in contrast to the merely earthly sovereign whose royal rank she shared. But, while Esther seems to speak somewhat disdainfully of her royal (but Gentile) husband in her prayer, she is also well aware that it is her royal position which may be the means for her people's salvation. As her Uncle Mordecai himself had told her: "Who knows but that it was for a time like this that you obtained the royal dignity?"
The story of Esther reminds us that life is always dangerous, that threats abound on all sides, that feeling endangered and threatened, alone and abandoned, may be the just person's natural state in this vale of tears. But it teaches - and that is after all the point of the story - that God's providential care for his people is infinite and manifests itself in surprising ways. And it teaches us not to disdain the natural, human opportunity's social and political life affords us to benefit from God's providence in the here and now.
....
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Haman (= King Coniah) and Genealogy of Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ: The Only Possible Legitimate Messiah
Matthew, who is the most Jewish of the Gospels, begins with the words, “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”
Is Jesus Christ the legitimate heir to the throne of King David? How can we be sure that He is the only possible legal, and the royal Messiah of Israel?
The Scriptures declare that Jesus Christ “was a descendent of David.” Therefore His Jewish ancestry is very important to establish His legitimacy as the Jewish messiah.
Two Lineages of the Son of David
God “promised beforehand through the prophets in the holy scriptures” things concerning the coming of the son of David. Those things related to the place, nature of His birth, life, death and resurrection. His Jewish background would demand that He be born of the line of David if He would be eligible to sit on the great king’s throne and reign forever as the true king of Israel.
The prophet Jeremiah was specific when he wrote in 23:5-6 of the coming of the royal son of David:
“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
And He will reign as king and act wisely
And do justice and righteousness in the land.
“In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell securely;
And this is His name by which He will be called,
‘The Lord our righteousness.’”
The Jewish writer Matthew uses the genealogy of Jesus of Nazareth to prove that Jesus had descended from King David and therefore qualified to be Israel’s Messiah (2 Samuel 7:13-16). The promise had been given to King David, “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before Me” (2 Samuel 7:16).
Matthew uses at least forty formal quotations from the Old Testament, and at least sixteen times he uses the formula, “all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet saying . . .” Matthew traces the origins of Jesus to King David and to the Jewish patriarch Abraham.
Matthew begins his genealogy with Abraham and moves forward through fourteen generations in history to David, and then his descendents through fourteen generations to the Babylonian exile, and another fourteen generations to “Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (Matt. 1:16).
Another genealogy is given by Luke, which moves in the opposite direction. He begins with Joseph and goes back to David, Abraham and Adam (Luke 3:31, 34, 38). He is giving evidence to show that Jesus “will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end” (1:32-33).
Both of the genealogies are dealing with the same person, Jesus the Messiah. Both trace the lineage of Jesus through His adopted father Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.
Legal and Royal Rights to the Throne of David
The difficulty we encounter when we look at the two genealogies is quite interesting. They are the lines of two brothers and the children are cousins. Matthew says that Joseph was the son of Jacob who descended from David through David’s son and successor King Solomon (1:6). However, Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli who had descended from David through Nathan (Luke 3:31), who was also David’s son and a brother of Solomon (v. 32).
Bernhard Weiss and James Orr carefully note that we are looking at two lineages of Joseph and Mary respectively, each who are descendents of King David. “Nathan’s line ran on through the years and ultimately produced the Virgin Mary. Solomon’s line ran on through the years and ultimately produced Joseph.” But Joseph was not the father of Jesus. He was the husband of Mary, the adoptive father of Jesus (Matt. 1:16). The distinction between these two lines of descent from David is between the “royal” line of those who actually sat on the throne and the “legal” line of descent from one oldest son to the next, even though these descendents never actually reigned as kings of Israel.
It is important to keep in mind these two lines of descendents from King David. Nathan was the older brother of Solomon, but the younger brother took the throne. Solomon was the king God chose to reign after David’s death. Normally, however, that would have fallen to the elder son, Nathan, who would have been king if God had not given it to Solomon. Of course, none of Nathan’s descendents ever claimed the throne. There were no reigning kings in his line of descendents, even though they had the legal right to the throne. When Joseph adopted Jesus as his legal son, Jesus became both David's direct descendent through David's son Nathan (Mary's side), and David's legal royal heir through Solomon (Joseph's side).
The line of Solomon continued down through the centuries until it eventually produced Joseph, who was betrothed to the virgin Mary who would eventually become her husband after she had given birth to Jesus. However, note very carefully that Jesus was not a descendent of Joseph. However, when Joseph took Mary under his protection and thus became the adoptive father of her divine child, he passed the right of royalty to Jesus.
A Divine Curse
Moreover, Jeremiah 22:30 tells us that if Jesus had been the physical descended from Joseph a divine curse would have been on Him if He succeeded to the Davidic throne. Jeremiah tells us a terrible curse was pronounced on king Jehoiachin (Jechonias, whom Jeremiah abbreviates to Coniah), the last of the actual reigning kings who descended from King Solomon.
“Thus says the Lord,
‘Write this man down childless,
A man who will not prosper in his days;
For no man of his descendants will prosper
Sitting on the throne of David
Or ruling again in Judah.’ ”
Because of God’s curse on Jehoiachin, no king who ever descended in that line could be a legitimate king. "Thus says the Lord, �Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah ... (NET). Though Jehoiachin did have children, he was considered childless because none of his descendents were allowed by God to sit on the throne of David and rule Judah (1 Chron. 3:17). Judah's lat king was his uncle, Zedekiah. the line of rulership passed through Jeconiah's sons though none of them ever occupied the throne.
If Joseph had been the physical father of Jesus, Jesus could not have been the Messiah. Jesus is the son of Mary, not the son of Joseph and Mary. If Jesus had been a physical descendent of Joseph and not virgin-born, He would have been disqualified because of this divine curse.
But wait. What about Joseph and his descendents? Remember, Jesus was not a physical descendent of Joseph. Joseph was Jesus’ step-father. Joseph, a descendent of Solomon, with Jesus' legal father, therefore, His right to the throne came through His legal father. Each of his half brothers, who were the only other possible candidates for the Messiah had the curse of Jehoiachin on them and would have passed it on to their children if they had become king.
A Royal Heir
Because Jesus was a divine child his adoptive father handed the reign over to Him. Therefore, Jesus was a legitimate royal heir to the throne.
Many bible scholars follow this same line of thought. Donald Grey Barnhouse gives an excellent summary. The line that had no curse upon it produced Heli and his daughter the Virgin Mary and her Son Jesus Christ. He is therefore eligible by the line of Nathan and exhausts that line. The line that had a curse on it produced Joseph and exhausts the line of Solomon, for Joseph’s other children now have an elder brother who, legally, by adoption, is the royal heir. How can the title be free in any case? A curse on one line and the lack of reigning royalty in the other.
But when God the Holy Spirit begat the Lord Jesus Christ in the womb of the virgin without any use of a human father, the child that was born was the seed of David according to the flesh. And when Joseph married Mary and took the unborn child under his protecting care, giving him the title that had come down to him through his ancestor Solomon, the Lord Jesus became the legal Messiah, the royal messiah, the uncursed messiah, the true Messiah, the only possible messiah. The lines are exhausted. Any man that ever comes into this world professing to fulfill the conditions will be a liar and the child of the devil (Man’s Ruin: Exposition of Bible Doctrines, Taking the Epistle to the Romans as a Point of Departure, vol. 1, Romans 1:1-32. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952, p. 45-47).
A Legal Heir
Moreover, because Jesus descended from Mary, who also was a descendent of King David through the lineage of Nathan, He had a legal claim to the throne. The two lines of David focused on the Messiah. No one else could ever bring a legitimate claim to the throne of David.
Luke presented the physical line of Jesus through His mother who descended from David through the line of Nathan (Luke 3:31). in this way Jesus escaped the curse of Jehoiachin.
Donald Barnhouse concludes, “If Jesus is not the Messiah who has descended from David according to the Old Testament prophecies, there will never be a Messiah. For Jesus had no human children, and each of his brothers (who are the only other possibilities through whom another messiah might descend) had the curse on him and would have passed it on to his children” and Jeremiah’s prophecy would thus be fulfilled.
Jesus Christ is the legitimate descendent from two lines of King David. He is the King announced in the Jewish prophecies. He is the King Messiah who was also the Son of God. He is the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” No one else can make that claim. He is the only possible legitimate Messiah. There can absolutely be no other.
How significant that the great prophecy that the Messiah King would come through the line of David was given just a few verses after the great words of judgment on the descendents of Jehoiachin. C. C. Ryrie notes, “If Jesus had been born only in the line of Joseph (and thus of Jechoniah, Heb. Coniah), He would not have been qualified to reign on the throne of David in the Millennium.” He also writes, “Had our Lord been the natural son of Joseph, He could not have been successful on the throne of David because of this curse. But since He came through Mary’s lineage, He was not affected by this curse.” There was no curse on Nathan's line.
Though Jechoniah’s sons never occupied the throne, the line of rulership passed through them. If Jesus had been a physical descendent of Jechoniah, He would not have been able to occupy David’s throne. Luke’s genealogy makes it clear that Jesus was a legal descendant of David through his son Nathan (Lk. 3:31). Joseph, a descendent of Solomon, was Jesus’ legal adoptive father, so Jesus traced His royal rights to the throne through Joseph.
Jesus Christ is the only legitimate legal Jewish Messiah. Let us bow and worship Him as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
....
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Evil-merodach (562-560) freed Jehoiachin
Evil-merodach came to power in Babylon upon the death of his father Nebuchadnezzar in 562 B.C. There are only two references to him in the Bible, and these are parallel accounts. Evidence suggests that Jehoiachin (Jeconiah, Coniah), the king of Judah who was taken to Babylon in 597 B.C., was treated like a king in exile during most, or all, of his time in Babylon. The kindness of Evil-merodach receives special attention.
27 And in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, graciously freed Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. 28 And he spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat above the seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon. 29 So Jehoiachin put off his prison garments. And every day of his life he dined regularly at the king’s table, 30 and for his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the king, according to his daily needs, as long as he lived. (2 Kings 25:27-30 ESV; cf. Jeremiah 52:31-34)
It is interesting that we have a biblical record mentioning Evil-merodach’s treatment of Jehoiachin (about 560 B.C.), and we have archaeological evidence of similar treatment at an earlier period. Four tablets mentioning Jehoiachin and his sons date to the period 595–570 B.C.
These tablets record rations that were given to the exiled king, his sons, and eight men of Judah. The one shown here is usually displayed in the Museum of the Ancient Near East (Vorderasiatische Museum), also called the Pergamon Museum, in Berlin (VAT 16378).
A trip to Berlin is worthwhile for many reasons, but one of the best is to visit the Museum of the Ancient East. Even though it could stand some revisions, you should find my Biblically Related Artifacts in the Museums of Berlin helpful. It is available in PDF here.
Here is what I wrote about this tablet:
“Jehoiachin (Jeconiah, Coniah) was the young king of Judah who was taken captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC. (2 Kings 24:15). The date of the capture of Jerusalem (March 16, 597 BC) was learned in 1955 when Donald J. Wiseman, then of the British Museum, read a cuneiform tablet from Babylon. About 300 cuneiform tablets, dating between 595 and 570 BC, were found near the Ishtar Gate in Babylon. They contain lists of rations such as barley and oil paid to the captives and craftsmen. Persons from various countries are mentioned: Egypt, Philistia, Phoenicia, Asia Minor, Judah, etc. Some Biblical names are included: Gaddiel, Semachiah, and Shelemiah (a name mentioned prominently in Jeremiah 36-37). The most interesting name is Yaukin, king of the land of Yahud (Judah), along with five royal princes. The name, pronounced Yow-keen, is known to be an abbreviation for Jehoiachin. One document in which his name occurs is dated to 592 BC. These tablets show that the Babylonians continued to regard Jehoiachin as the legitimate king of Judah and gave him special treatment while he was in captivity (2 Kings 25:27-30; Jeremiah 52:31-34). The tablets were read by E. F. Weidner in the basement of the Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin, after 1933.
[For those with access to this type of material:] Some Sources: Albright, BA 5 (1942), 49-55; ANET, 308 for translation; DOTT, 84-86; JFLAP, 225-227; IDB, II:811-13; Werner Keller, The Bible as History, 285-287; Wiseman, Illustrations from Biblical Archaeology, 73 for photo [showing both the reverse and the obverse of the photo above].”
More Recent Source: Fant, Clyde E. and Mitchell G. Reddish, Lost Treasures of the Bible, 217-220.
....
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
The possibility that Darius the Mede is to be identified with Cyrus the Persian king.
D. J. Wiseman, “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel,”
D. J. Wiseman, ed.,
Notes on Some
Problems in the Book of Daniel
l. London: The Tyndale Press, 1965. pp. 9-18.
Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel
D. J. Wiseman
A. DARIUS THE MEDE
....
3. The ‘Cyrus’ Theory.
In 1957 I put forward as a working hypothesis the possibility that Darius the Mede is to be identified with Cyrus the Persian king.
19 It may be helpful to review this theory in the light of criticism made of it by Dr. Whitcomb.
20 The basis of the hypothesis is that Daniel 6:28 can be translated ‘Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even (namely, or i.e.) the reign of Cyrus the Persian.’ Such a use of the appositional or explicative Hebrew wa„w construction has long been recognized in Chronicles 5:26 (‘So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria even the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria’) and elsewhere.
....Monday, September 23, 2013
The Haman Complex: How To Betray Oneself
Taken from: http://7communities.wordpress.com/tag/haman/
....
The Haman Complex: How To Betray Oneself (3)
I am continuing to pour over the ancient story of Esther in the Bible. This morning, I reread Haman’s “bad day”. (Esther 6-7) Arrogant deceitfulness eventually has its day in court. To think that in the span of just a few hours, what was built to execute a fine man, was the means for divine judgement on a pompous, self-absorbed fool.
Many suffer injustices all over the world. It seems there is no end to their pain and misery. We often ask why this is. The truth is, the suffering does not go unnoticed. There is Divine justice in the heavens, and the One who sees all, will come to the aid of the oppressed.
The Jews faced annihilation by a conniving social climber. There were only two voices that could spare them, and they were providentially positioned in the King’s court. It is often difficult to see how the events of life are arranged by the Unseen Hand of God to bring the greatest amount of blessing to a particular region of the world, in a particular time and place. Esther and Mordecai display the risky faith needed to speak when the time is right, and trust the One who promised to bless them and use them to be a blessing to others.
Haman hung from a tree in his own backyard, in full view of his family and countrymen. Even the King was not fully aware of the significance of the event. One thing surely remains for history to trumpet loud and clear. The oppressed are seen, heard, and eventually rescued by Divine Compassion. Only the blind miss it.
Questions: Do you hurt for the oppressed? Have you ever wondered why some people’s suffering goes on for so long? Does the story of Esther renew your faith in the Unseen Hand of Divine Compassion?
Posted by Bryan Prosser in Miscellany and tagged faith, God, Divine Providence, history, Bible, justice, Haman, Esther, Old Testament, Mordecai, Divine Compassion, Unseen Hand of God, oppression, divine judgement, injustices, suffering, blessing, promise, annihilation, pain, misery, social climber, King, fool, risky faith, oppressed
The Haman Complex: How To Betray Oneself (2)
” The light and careless way in which Ahasuerus handed away to Haman the lives of tens of thousands of his industrious and useful subjects is deservedly branded as ” perhaps the most shocking example of oriental despotism on record.” It ranks with the recent callous announcement of Nazi Hitler, that he was prepared to sacrifice the lives of a million Germans to invade England. Conscience and common sense alike protest the wrongness of such power being in the hands of any one man. A really sound and good man will refuse to bear such a responsibility singly. A bad man can only abuse it. Democracy may be beset with many complex difficulties, but it is immeasurably preferable to despotism or dictatorship.”This is a quote from J. Sidlow Baxter in reference to the book of Esther in Explore The Book, page 271.
Question: Have you ever face despotism in your life? What have you learned to avoid being controlled by it?
Posted by Bryan Prosser in Miscellany and tagged Ahasuerus, Bible, common sense, democracy, despotism, dictatorship, England, Explore The Book, Germans, Haman, Hitler, J. Sidlow Baxter, Nazi, Old Testament, oriental despotism, power | Leave a Comment
The Haman Complex: How To Betray Oneself
Are you familiar with “The Haman Complex”? It’s when someone plots the destruction of a person who poses a threat, yet dies by the same device they designed to silence their foe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)