In the past I've been hostile to viewing the 7 Kings as 7 Kingdoms or Empires rather then a specific succession of individual Kings. Chris White argues they are 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms.
I'll never be convinced of a model that adds two empires or even one before Nebuchadnezzar. But my perspective on this changed when I noticed something about how Daniel 7 and the Beast from the Sea in Revelation are compared.
This thesis here could damage a lot of my earlier theories. But not my over all view of Bible Prophecy.
Seven is also the total number of heads in Daniel 7, 1 Lion, 1 Bear, 4 of the Leopard and the Ten horns are defined as on a head in Daniel 7. The Beast of Revelation 13 is all four of Daniel 7's beasts merged together.
So we have 7 Kingdoms, each also with one specific of their Kings to single out. That is how I now look at it.
The 7 kings do NOT each have to be a type of The Antichrist, that is just a made up rule some people have for studying this. Cyrus is indisputably the Second King in question here, he is never portrayed negatively in Scripture. In fact he is the only Gentile The Hebrew Bible ever declares a Messiah, and it's God himself saying it to Cyrus in Isaiah 44/45. Some of them may be types, but they don't all need to be.
In fact even though I've done and may still do a lot of talking about potential types of The Anitchrist on this Blog. The Biblical endorsement for the concept of types are entirely about Jesus, Paul in Colossians saying everything in the law was a foreshadowing of Jesus that had already been fulfilled, Jesus saying the Volume of The Book is of Him. There is no Biblical basis for calling ANYONE a type of The Antichrist.
This model has to make Rome the 7th rather then 6th Empire. How can Rome possibly be yet Future in John's time? Or be said to have not lasted very long?
The 7 Kings we're are looking for are not rulers or occupiers of Israel/Jerusalem. Revelation 17 is specifically about Babylon, it's about 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms who ruled Babylon, starting with it's native kingdom. Daniel 7 is in the Aramaic part of Daniel, the language of the Assyrians and Babylonians of Daniel's time. And he was in Babylonia when he had this vision. The four beasts are described as World Empires and all four are, but to the point of view of the Babylonians Daniel first made this Prophecy for, no one truly became a world empire till they conquered their world.
Rome did NOT rule Babylon at any point during the New Testament era or before it. John wrote Revelation at the latest during the reign of Domitian. The second Emperor after that, Trajan, was the first Roman to take Mesopotamia and Assyria. and it was at the very end of his reign that he did. Then Hadrian succeeded him, and he pretty much immediately gave them back to Parthia. So Rome only ever ruled Babylon for a very short time, just a few years.
The ruler of Parthia when John wrote was Pacorus II. (Who's mother was a Greek concubine, further showing he can count as a Greek King, and his father's maternal grandmother had Seleucid ancestry). When Pacorus died Trajan was already Emperor of Rome. Later in the 160s AD there was another Roman military incursion into Mesopotamia, but it never reached Babylon, it's focus was on Seleucica.
While it's not a coincidence that the 4 heads of the Leopard are the same number of horns the Notable horn of the Ram breaks into. I think what they represent specifically here could be sort of different. We are dealing with four Hellenistic era Kingdoms that ruled Babylon. The first is Alexander himself, then comes the successors.
I believe Parthia while often thought of as a quasi Persian empire can be looked at as coming out of Alexander's Empire. He had conquered that region, and by the New Testament period the Arascid Royal Family had Seleucid blood intermingled into them.
Babylon was taken from the Seleucid Empire by Parthia in 150 BC. It was still firmly Seleucid during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasomonean revolt.
Antigonus and Seleucus Nicator fought over Babylon early on after it was clear Alexander's own Dynasty would not survive. Eventually Seleucus secured it.
I'm going to consider Ptolemy the true successor to Alexander in this context. He had Alexander's body buried in the city named after him, an act that secured succession in Macedonian custom, and was possibly a half brother or cousin of Alexander.
The 4 Heads of the Leopard could be viewed as Antigonus in Macedon =The West, Antioch=The North, Alexandria=The South and Parthia=The East. Thus fitting the Four Winds of Heaven reference in Daniel 11. Though for that context we could also say the West was the Macedon-Greece homeland which was originally ruled by the Antipards but which the Antigonids took as they lost what was originally allotted to them to Seleucus.
So the 7 King(dom)s of Babylon from Daniel are Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander The Great, Antigonus, Seleucid Dynasty, Pacorus of Parthia, and Trajan of Rome.
In the past I firmly argued that I believe The Antichrist's Death and Resurrection must both be in the future. And I was not comfortable with the theories making him some past King being brought back.
But in light of this, I must be consistent with my clear understanding of Revelation 17's terminology. "Was, and is not" means the Eight King is one of the first 5, since it defines the present of this message as the 6th.
I still believe the Beast Empire is largely a Revived Roman Empire, but the Little Horn shows up among the ten horns in Daniel 7, distinct from Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the 4 horns. He's ruling Rome but not as a Roman himself.
I don't believe it has to be someone who died from a head wound. The doctrine of The Antichrist's Resurrection to me is proven not by the mortal head wound being healed but by his ascending out of the Bottomless Pit, and how that theme ties into Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28-32, (though fatal sword wound references are there too).
It could be he's already an early example of the second resurrection when he receives the mortal wound, and what amazes people is him surviving something that should have killed him, because he now has a body like a fallen angel.
Alexander The Great is distinct as being in a sense the main King of the Leopard as a whole as well as one of the heads. I see Daniel 7:12 saying both that the Assyrian, Persian and Greek nations will exist during the Millennium. And that their main three Kings, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great, are saved individuals and will exist in The Millennium too.
That only leaves Antigonus and the Seleucids.
Daniel 11:40-45 seems to have The Antichrist as separate from the King of The North. However, I've explained why I'm no longer certain that even is The Antichrist, and that it might be Augustus. But if that is the End Times and is The 8th King, it's while he's not a ruler of his original kingdom anymore but of the 10 horns to emerge from Rome.
There is nothing to link Antigonus to the Antichrist, but a lot of reasons to link the Seleucids. Daniel 8 as well as Epiphanes doing the first Abomination of Desolation, which Jesus clarifies there will be one yet future.
I argued in the past when discussing Daniel 8 that there The Little Horn is the Seleucid dynasty as a whole, not just 1 or 2 individuals. So unlike others who've argued a thesis similar to what I'm arguing here, I don't necessarily think it's Antiochus Epiphanes himself who is the Seleucid ruler that will ascend out of the Bottomless Pit, but certainly could be.
There are reasons to believe The Antichrist will be someone The Jews accept at first until the Abomination of Desolation happens. If he's Epiphanes and is known to be Epiphanes, that would be unlikely. Epiphanes is up there with Hitler and Haman on the most hated by Jews list.
I do think it must be a Seleucid mentioned in Daniel 11, making him a Biblical figure. Seleucus I might be the candidate to start with, but while important to Seleucid history obviously, what's said of him in Daniel 11 is brief and pales in comparison to some of the others. But it is interesting that a legend existed in the ancient world that his mother Laodice claimed he was fathered by Apollo.
Three times in Daniel 11 a king is described as "doing according to his will". One of these is verse 36 which is clearly past the immediate history of Epiphanes already, after the Hasmonean Kingdom has fallen to Rome. And may or may not be about The Antichrist. It's first used of Alexander The Great at the start of the chapter. Between them it's in verse 16.
Verse 16 is during the time of Antiochus III The Great's wars. And usually he is identified by scholars as the one "doing according to his will" there. But Hippolytus of Rome in his Daniel commentary confusingly says this was an Alexander not known from any other surviving historical sources we have on the period. He might have gotten confused by how that phrase was earlier affiliated with Alexander The Great, or maybe it's a scribal/copyist error.
It was under Antiochus The Great that Israel was taken from the Ptolemies and became part of the Seleucid Empire. He is overall remembered fondly by The Jews as recorded by Josephus. His relationship with them in Daniel 11 seems positive. He continued Alexander and the Ptolemies general policy of not interfering with their Faith or The Temple.
But Josephus seems to be familiar with only 1 Maccabees and not 2 Maccabees. 2 Maccabees chapter 1 seems to refer to the death of Antiochus III and deems him ungodly. Some see the benefits Antiochus gave The Temple as having been good for the Priestly class but not really for the common people.
Epiphanes is still the key link this dynasty has to The Antichrist. It's highly possible he will lie about who he is, even when he first reveals himself to be a resurrected past individual he may lie about exactly who he is. Maybe he'll try to claim he's Elijah or David or Solomon or someone like that. Or maybe just a simple matter of lying about which Macedonian or Seleucid ruler he is.
Some have agreed that Daniel 11:36-45 can't refer to anything Epiphanes did, yet still feel that the tone of the text wants us to think of him. This could agree with a notion that he was recorded earlier as the 5th King and 36-45 is about him as the 8th King.
On the notion that we're dealing with a ruler of one of the earlier Kingdoms now ruling/reviving Rome. Epiphanes had been a hostage in Rome, and Polybus said he liked to rule as if he were a Roman. Maybe he is the ideal person to revive the Roman Empire.
Which would create more options for someone he could claim to be, like Augustus.
But one interesting option is for him to claim to be Constantine XI, the last Byzantine Emperor. Like all later Byzantine Emperors he was firmly Greek, so Antiochus could remain the same ethnicity and native language. Constantine XI supposedly died in battle when Constantinople fell to the Turks, but his death was never solidly confirmed. So a rumor spread that an Angel had saved him and turned him into a statue and hid him beneath the Gate of Constantinople and would one be awoken to drive to the Turks. His legacy has remained important among the Greeks, drawing on it during their War of Independence in the 19th Century.
And the legend of his return no doubt became interwoven with the Last Roman Emperor tradition. The original seed of which, the late 4th century prophecy attributed to the Tiburtine Sibyl called him a King of The Greeks named Constans.
One argument against the idea that 36-39 could be about Epiphanes is that he was consistent with the religion of his fathers. However there is also a sense in which Epiphanes did change the religion of the Seleucid Empire, ironically the opposite of the change Augustus later made in Rome. Apollo had been the favored deity of earlier Seleucids, but Epiphanes downplayed him and was more fond of Zeus. But it still would be absurd to label Zeus a god "whom his fathers knew not" for any Greek people.
But if Epiphanes returns in the End Days his religion may be different, especially if he comes back after being resurrected and thinking Satan was responsible for it.
He did deify himself, technically the full name he used was Antíochos D' ho Epiphanḗs (Antiochus God Manifest, or Antiochus Zeus Manifest). I've noticed that while none of the known forms of Epiphanes/Epiphany I've found used in ancient Greek texts have a Greek gemetria value of 666, it isn't difficult to construct a form that does have that value, it seems 1 or 2 letters could make the difference.
Update August 2016: I just argued that the Eight King could be a Ptolemy.
Monday, May 25, 2015
Friday, May 22, 2015
Heli of Luke's genealogy is the father of Mary
I hold that common view, but I don't argue it in the more common way that view is presented. It's not about Heli being Joseph's father in law. At least it's not only that.
In the Greek of Luke 3:23, first of all the order of words are different. Secondly the entire genealogy in Greek only says "son of" once, and that's before the "as was supposed" which is put in parentheses.
In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article with one exception: the name of Joseph. Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that he was not really part of the genealogy. I actually believe the parentheses in English should be expanded to include his name.
So I would render it.
In both Greek and Hebrew the word for Son can mean Grandson or any descendant.
Tribal identity in Israel was usually determined strictly pater-lineally. But in the case of bastards where the father was unknown, or a proselyte marrying an Israelite woman and fathering children by her, the pater-lineal tribal identity of the mother would determine the tribal identity of that offspring.
Also while inheritance can usually go only through sons, a man with no sons but daughters can pass inheritance through his daughters if she marries within the tribe. Due to the law of the Daughters of Zelophehad, discussed in Numbers 26:33, 27, 36, Joshua 17 and 1 Chronicles 7. Joseph being of the House of David would qualify as the same tribe.
Another example of a bad argument to use on this issue is the Talmudic reference sometimes cited as saying Heli was the father of Mary (Chag. 77,4). This reference only seems to say this when a Christian is quoting it, so independent verification is wanting, and it has been cited by adversaries of this view as saying something different. The Talmud is complicated to study, so maybe there is something there, but we're better off just avoiding it for now.
We should not build doctrine on Apocrypha, but the Infancy Gospel of James is interesting. At first glance it would seem to contradict this view by clearly naming the father of Mary as Joachim.... But....
Joachim is a variant form of the name Jehoiakim. There is only one Jehoiakim in The Bible, he was a King of Judah of the House of David. The Infancy Gospel doesn't specify Joachim's ancestry, but other traditions related to his wife Anna/Hannah say she was of the House of David. Tie that to him having a Davidic name and it seems he's Davidic. [Update: I was rereading it recently and noticed the infancy Gospel does call Mary a Virgin of the daughters of David.]
King Jehoiakim was also known by the name Eliakim. Those names not only look similar in how they end, but they have effectively the same meaning, just using a different name of God to communicate the meaning. "He whom God has kept". So it's probable any Jehoiakim could have also been called Eliakim, especially if a later one was named after the King.
Eli could very easily serve as a shortening of Eliakim. And as I already said Heli was a Hellenization of Eli.
Yet the Infancy Gospel wouldn't have done it this way if it was seeking out to say the Biblical Heli is Mary's father. While plenty in the Infancy Gospel is clearly false, being the prototype of Catholic Marian doctrines. It may have been influenced by some real history that was passed on.
In the Greek of Luke 3:23, first of all the order of words are different. Secondly the entire genealogy in Greek only says "son of" once, and that's before the "as was supposed" which is put in parentheses.
In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article with one exception: the name of Joseph. Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that he was not really part of the genealogy. I actually believe the parentheses in English should be expanded to include his name.
So I would render it.
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli,Thomas Aquinus also said that Luke says Jesus was the Son of Eli (Heli is a Hellenization of Eli) though he didn't explain why. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, p. IIIa, q.31, a.3, Reply to Objection 2.
In both Greek and Hebrew the word for Son can mean Grandson or any descendant.
Tribal identity in Israel was usually determined strictly pater-lineally. But in the case of bastards where the father was unknown, or a proselyte marrying an Israelite woman and fathering children by her, the pater-lineal tribal identity of the mother would determine the tribal identity of that offspring.
Also while inheritance can usually go only through sons, a man with no sons but daughters can pass inheritance through his daughters if she marries within the tribe. Due to the law of the Daughters of Zelophehad, discussed in Numbers 26:33, 27, 36, Joshua 17 and 1 Chronicles 7. Joseph being of the House of David would qualify as the same tribe.
Another example of a bad argument to use on this issue is the Talmudic reference sometimes cited as saying Heli was the father of Mary (Chag. 77,4). This reference only seems to say this when a Christian is quoting it, so independent verification is wanting, and it has been cited by adversaries of this view as saying something different. The Talmud is complicated to study, so maybe there is something there, but we're better off just avoiding it for now.
We should not build doctrine on Apocrypha, but the Infancy Gospel of James is interesting. At first glance it would seem to contradict this view by clearly naming the father of Mary as Joachim.... But....
Joachim is a variant form of the name Jehoiakim. There is only one Jehoiakim in The Bible, he was a King of Judah of the House of David. The Infancy Gospel doesn't specify Joachim's ancestry, but other traditions related to his wife Anna/Hannah say she was of the House of David. Tie that to him having a Davidic name and it seems he's Davidic. [Update: I was rereading it recently and noticed the infancy Gospel does call Mary a Virgin of the daughters of David.]
King Jehoiakim was also known by the name Eliakim. Those names not only look similar in how they end, but they have effectively the same meaning, just using a different name of God to communicate the meaning. "He whom God has kept". So it's probable any Jehoiakim could have also been called Eliakim, especially if a later one was named after the King.
Eli could very easily serve as a shortening of Eliakim. And as I already said Heli was a Hellenization of Eli.
Yet the Infancy Gospel wouldn't have done it this way if it was seeking out to say the Biblical Heli is Mary's father. While plenty in the Infancy Gospel is clearly false, being the prototype of Catholic Marian doctrines. It may have been influenced by some real history that was passed on.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Was Alexander The Great Resurrected in 30 AD?
This is a follow up to an earlier study I did. Were some of the Angels once normal human beings. Where I argued many Old Testament Saints who were resurrected in 30 AD now also serve as Angels.
Why argue that a notorious Gentile Pagan world leader could be among those? We begin in Daniel 7.
Daniel 7 is a prophecy where the symbolism has two layers to it. The Beasts represents the kingdoms/nations of those world empires. But also for the first three at least their most notorious Kings who made them world empires. The Fourth is more complicated because Rome's history is more complicated.
Daniel 7:12 after describing the fourth beast's destruction says "As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." This shows that those three nations will still exist in the Millennium. But I also feel it should also apply to the three Kings. Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great. Which would make those three saved individuals.
With Nebuchadnezzar we know he's saved because Daniel 4 records his Salvation.
Some Dispensationlists teach salvation was different before The Cross, it's by Faith Alone only after. Problem is Paul was using the Old Testament to prove his point. In Galatians we are told Abraham was saved by Faith when he believed God in Genesis 15.
What exactly you needed to believe may have been different, since the NT wasn't written yet. But it was still by Belief. Jesus also tells us as The Queen of Sheba was saved because she believed Solomon, and the men of Nineveh because they believed Jonah. That they repented was a different cause to a different effect.
Isaiah 44-45 records a message God wrote to Cyrus before he was born. We know from the end of 2 Chronicles and beginning of Ezra that Cyrus did as God told him. Josephus records that it was Daniel who showed Isaiah's scroll to Cyrus. So Cyrus was saved by believing Isaiah's message I suspect.
Josephus later records that Daniel's prophecies that mentioned Alexander The Great were shown to Alexander when he was in Jerusalem. If you read Josephus account of Alexander in Jerusalem with this Biblical precedent in mind, you'll be left with little doubt that he was Saved at that time. And because I believe in Eternal Security, none of his later sins either disproved that salvation or undid it.
As I said before on the subject of the 30 AD Resurrection of Old Testament Saints. Maybe not all were resurrected then (Matthew's text says many not all) and some are being saved for later. So if we ever find Alexander's body it would not disprove anything I argued for above, only what I'm about to argue for below.
I've looked at the history of historical references to Alexander's body and/or tomb and found some things curious.
The last recorded visit that takes place before 30 AD is when Augustus visited it. Where he accidentally damaged his Nose trying to place a reef on the body. Dion Cassius, LI, 16 and LXXV, 13. reports Augustus' request to see the body of Alexander. "But touching the nose he did some damage to it. Asked if he wanted to visit the tombs of the Ptolemies, he refused, saying that: "I came to see a king and not dead men". Also Suetonius, vit. Auq. XVIII.
The first visit known to happen after 30 AD is Caligula's also recorded by Suetonius. He removed Alexander's breast plate, but the body isn't really directly mentioned. You'd think the man with the more reckless personality seeking to do a more difficult task would do more damage to it?
Dion also records that in his own day the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus sealed up the Tomb. He also mentions that Severus placed in the Mausoleum all the secret books "so none could read the books nor see the body". Septimius Severus was also one of the Emperors who persecuted Christianity, and his wife was a notorious opponent of Christianity.
The next Emperor, Caracalla, placed items in the Tomb but again the body isn't mentioned. A modern theory that he moved the body to a tomb in Macedon has been formed. Why would he do that while still honoring the Tomb in Alexandria? He also believed he was something like a reincarnation of Alexander (he was one of the crazy Emperors) maybe a lack of Body there helped reinforce that idea in his head.
The Body itself seems to have always been visible and referenced before 30 AD, but after that direct references to the body are avoided. Maybe it disappeared in 30 AD?
It was in the 4th Century that certainty of what structure was Alexander's Tomb was lost. Some theories interestingly have one of the earliest Christian Churches of Alexandria built over the Tomb. One specifically is a Church called the Church of Alexander. There were no Church Buildings before the Third Century, so Church building was still a new thing during this period. Why would Christians want to build a Church over his tomb and name it after him? Did early Alexandrian Christians have a tradition we've lost? Could it be in 30 AD Alexander rose again and proclaimed the Olympian gods false and that the recently Crucified Jesus of Nazareth was The One True God?
Let's return to Scripture. Acts 16:8-12
To 1st Century AD Greek speakers the biography of Alexander was as well known as the biography of George Washington is to us. And this part of the Acts narrative was very likely to make readers think of Alexander. Paul is sort of following Alexander's footsteps in reverse. Troy was one of the first places Alexander made a point to visit after he traversed from Europe into Asia. Paul is from Troy going to leave Asia and enter Europe with Macedon being the first place he goes. A city founded by and named after Alexander's father. Mention is also made of Samothace, the Island were Philip and Olympias (Alexander's parents) met while being inducted into a Dionsytic cult.
Other scholars have suggested that either Alexander or Philip is who the readers were meant to assume this man was. But they do so without tying any of these Resurrection or Daniel related issues into it.
Alexander did not have to be Resurrected to be used by God for this vision. Samuel did not need to be physically Resurrected to be used by God to deliver a message to Saul. But on this side of The Cross, Abraham's Bosom is empty, so the nature of the after life is different then it was before.
Saul was a namesake to Paul's Jewish name. But also similar to Alexander in some ways, both were important Kings of their nations but who's descendants didn't inherent their Thrones. For Alexander this detail about him is among the things Daniel predicts in chapter 11. Both also got angry and threw spears at people.
So, who knows, it's not something to build a huge doctrine on. But it's interesting.
Update March 4th 2017: I now consider this theory mostly defunct for two reasons.
1. I now strongly suspect those Resurrected in 30 AD are limited to people buried on the Mount of Olives at that time. And it's not likely Alexander's body wound up there.
2. Now that I believe in Universal Salvation, I no longer aboslutly need Alexander to have been Saved in his Mortal Life to possibly be on Earth during The Future Messianic Era, thus fitting Daniel 7. Though I still feel that is probably necessary to be here during the Millennium, and I do still think Alexander was possibly Saved in that sense.
Update October 23rd 2017: I have become more skeptical of the Mount of Olives model. And also decided that even if the 30 AD Resurrection began there, it may still have not been limited to it.
On the subject of Unviersal Sa;vation, I also don't even think those Resurrected in 30 AD were only of Believers, since I tie that Resurrection to Daniel 12. Either way I do still count Alexander, however flawed he was, as a righteous Gentile.
Update November 2018: Since that last Update I've become more convinced then ever of the Mount of Olives model.
But the main reason for this new update is that I've learned there are references to Alexander's Body in Alexandria following the time of Caligula. I've learned this while researching the theory that Alexander's Tomb become the Tomb of St Mark in the 390s AD.
Why argue that a notorious Gentile Pagan world leader could be among those? We begin in Daniel 7.
Daniel 7 is a prophecy where the symbolism has two layers to it. The Beasts represents the kingdoms/nations of those world empires. But also for the first three at least their most notorious Kings who made them world empires. The Fourth is more complicated because Rome's history is more complicated.
Daniel 7:12 after describing the fourth beast's destruction says "As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." This shows that those three nations will still exist in the Millennium. But I also feel it should also apply to the three Kings. Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great. Which would make those three saved individuals.
With Nebuchadnezzar we know he's saved because Daniel 4 records his Salvation.
Some Dispensationlists teach salvation was different before The Cross, it's by Faith Alone only after. Problem is Paul was using the Old Testament to prove his point. In Galatians we are told Abraham was saved by Faith when he believed God in Genesis 15.
What exactly you needed to believe may have been different, since the NT wasn't written yet. But it was still by Belief. Jesus also tells us as The Queen of Sheba was saved because she believed Solomon, and the men of Nineveh because they believed Jonah. That they repented was a different cause to a different effect.
Isaiah 44-45 records a message God wrote to Cyrus before he was born. We know from the end of 2 Chronicles and beginning of Ezra that Cyrus did as God told him. Josephus records that it was Daniel who showed Isaiah's scroll to Cyrus. So Cyrus was saved by believing Isaiah's message I suspect.
Josephus later records that Daniel's prophecies that mentioned Alexander The Great were shown to Alexander when he was in Jerusalem. If you read Josephus account of Alexander in Jerusalem with this Biblical precedent in mind, you'll be left with little doubt that he was Saved at that time. And because I believe in Eternal Security, none of his later sins either disproved that salvation or undid it.
As I said before on the subject of the 30 AD Resurrection of Old Testament Saints. Maybe not all were resurrected then (Matthew's text says many not all) and some are being saved for later. So if we ever find Alexander's body it would not disprove anything I argued for above, only what I'm about to argue for below.
I've looked at the history of historical references to Alexander's body and/or tomb and found some things curious.
The last recorded visit that takes place before 30 AD is when Augustus visited it. Where he accidentally damaged his Nose trying to place a reef on the body. Dion Cassius, LI, 16 and LXXV, 13. reports Augustus' request to see the body of Alexander. "But touching the nose he did some damage to it. Asked if he wanted to visit the tombs of the Ptolemies, he refused, saying that: "I came to see a king and not dead men". Also Suetonius, vit. Auq. XVIII.
The first visit known to happen after 30 AD is Caligula's also recorded by Suetonius. He removed Alexander's breast plate, but the body isn't really directly mentioned. You'd think the man with the more reckless personality seeking to do a more difficult task would do more damage to it?
Dion also records that in his own day the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus sealed up the Tomb. He also mentions that Severus placed in the Mausoleum all the secret books "so none could read the books nor see the body". Septimius Severus was also one of the Emperors who persecuted Christianity, and his wife was a notorious opponent of Christianity.
The next Emperor, Caracalla, placed items in the Tomb but again the body isn't mentioned. A modern theory that he moved the body to a tomb in Macedon has been formed. Why would he do that while still honoring the Tomb in Alexandria? He also believed he was something like a reincarnation of Alexander (he was one of the crazy Emperors) maybe a lack of Body there helped reinforce that idea in his head.
The Body itself seems to have always been visible and referenced before 30 AD, but after that direct references to the body are avoided. Maybe it disappeared in 30 AD?
It was in the 4th Century that certainty of what structure was Alexander's Tomb was lost. Some theories interestingly have one of the earliest Christian Churches of Alexandria built over the Tomb. One specifically is a Church called the Church of Alexander. There were no Church Buildings before the Third Century, so Church building was still a new thing during this period. Why would Christians want to build a Church over his tomb and name it after him? Did early Alexandrian Christians have a tradition we've lost? Could it be in 30 AD Alexander rose again and proclaimed the Olympian gods false and that the recently Crucified Jesus of Nazareth was The One True God?
Let's return to Scripture. Acts 16:8-12
And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, "Come over into Macedonia, and help us."
And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them. Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.I agree with the theory that the part of Acts 16 where Paul is at Troas (Troy) is where Luke (The Macedonian physician) joins him, because it's there that the narrative voice changed from third person to first person. But it's sometimes tied into that to identify Luke with the man who appeared to Paul in the vision asking him to come to Macedonia. But that to me is clearly an Angelic personage. Paul probably sought a Macedonian who was in Troas after that vision to help him as he decided to head to Macedonia.
To 1st Century AD Greek speakers the biography of Alexander was as well known as the biography of George Washington is to us. And this part of the Acts narrative was very likely to make readers think of Alexander. Paul is sort of following Alexander's footsteps in reverse. Troy was one of the first places Alexander made a point to visit after he traversed from Europe into Asia. Paul is from Troy going to leave Asia and enter Europe with Macedon being the first place he goes. A city founded by and named after Alexander's father. Mention is also made of Samothace, the Island were Philip and Olympias (Alexander's parents) met while being inducted into a Dionsytic cult.
Other scholars have suggested that either Alexander or Philip is who the readers were meant to assume this man was. But they do so without tying any of these Resurrection or Daniel related issues into it.
Alexander did not have to be Resurrected to be used by God for this vision. Samuel did not need to be physically Resurrected to be used by God to deliver a message to Saul. But on this side of The Cross, Abraham's Bosom is empty, so the nature of the after life is different then it was before.
Saul was a namesake to Paul's Jewish name. But also similar to Alexander in some ways, both were important Kings of their nations but who's descendants didn't inherent their Thrones. For Alexander this detail about him is among the things Daniel predicts in chapter 11. Both also got angry and threw spears at people.
So, who knows, it's not something to build a huge doctrine on. But it's interesting.
Update March 4th 2017: I now consider this theory mostly defunct for two reasons.
1. I now strongly suspect those Resurrected in 30 AD are limited to people buried on the Mount of Olives at that time. And it's not likely Alexander's body wound up there.
2. Now that I believe in Universal Salvation, I no longer aboslutly need Alexander to have been Saved in his Mortal Life to possibly be on Earth during The Future Messianic Era, thus fitting Daniel 7. Though I still feel that is probably necessary to be here during the Millennium, and I do still think Alexander was possibly Saved in that sense.
Update October 23rd 2017: I have become more skeptical of the Mount of Olives model. And also decided that even if the 30 AD Resurrection began there, it may still have not been limited to it.
On the subject of Unviersal Sa;vation, I also don't even think those Resurrected in 30 AD were only of Believers, since I tie that Resurrection to Daniel 12. Either way I do still count Alexander, however flawed he was, as a righteous Gentile.
Update November 2018: Since that last Update I've become more convinced then ever of the Mount of Olives model.
But the main reason for this new update is that I've learned there are references to Alexander's Body in Alexandria following the time of Caligula. I've learned this while researching the theory that Alexander's Tomb become the Tomb of St Mark in the 390s AD.
I'm kind of annoyed
That currently the post poplar post of this Blog is the Lunar Tetrad of 2032-33 post.
I'm not dogmatic about any of my date setting theories. And currently that one happens be my least favorite of the ones I've suggested in the history of this blog.
But I guess until this years Fall Feasts come and go the Blood Moon theory will remain the hot topic in Bible Prophecy, and so anything even vaguely related to it will get a lot of clicks.
I'm not dogmatic about any of my date setting theories. And currently that one happens be my least favorite of the ones I've suggested in the history of this blog.
But I guess until this years Fall Feasts come and go the Blood Moon theory will remain the hot topic in Bible Prophecy, and so anything even vaguely related to it will get a lot of clicks.
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Hanukkah is a Biblical Holy Day
I've seen one random online forum filled with Christians really offended by the notion that Jesus was observing Hanukkah in John 10:22-23. "And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch."
They insist Jesus could not have been observing a Holy Day never actually ordained in The Hebrew Bible. That Daniel foretells the history that produced Hanukkah isn't enough for them.
They insist this "dedication" refers either to the second of Adar when the Second Temple was first dedicated. Or to how Solomon originally Dedicated the Temple with an expansion of Tabernacles to 14 days, and feel that's backed up by this following John 7-9.
The latter requires expanding the definition of Winter, (maybe so does the former, but sometimes Adar can fall during a pretty cold period). But the point is it doesn't say the anniversary of the dedication, it said the Feast of Dedication was being observed. The 25th of Kislev is the only Feast the Jews ever celebrated by that name.
Also I firmly believe the Expansion of the Festival Solomon did was the prior week not the following Week, since it clearly defines the 22nd as the day the Festival ended, and the 23rd as the day everyone went home. Also 2 Chronicles 7:9 says "And in the eighth day they made a solemn assembly: for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days." Which clearly defines the extra 7 days as coming first.
They insist Jesus could not have been observing a Holy Day never actually ordained in The Hebrew Bible. That Daniel foretells the history that produced Hanukkah isn't enough for them.
They insist this "dedication" refers either to the second of Adar when the Second Temple was first dedicated. Or to how Solomon originally Dedicated the Temple with an expansion of Tabernacles to 14 days, and feel that's backed up by this following John 7-9.
The latter requires expanding the definition of Winter, (maybe so does the former, but sometimes Adar can fall during a pretty cold period). But the point is it doesn't say the anniversary of the dedication, it said the Feast of Dedication was being observed. The 25th of Kislev is the only Feast the Jews ever celebrated by that name.
Also I firmly believe the Expansion of the Festival Solomon did was the prior week not the following Week, since it clearly defines the 22nd as the day the Festival ended, and the 23rd as the day everyone went home. Also 2 Chronicles 7:9 says "And in the eighth day they made a solemn assembly: for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days." Which clearly defines the extra 7 days as coming first.
The only objection offered to it being the prior week is the assumption of Yom Kippr being a Fast Day. The Bible never links the word Fast to Yom Kippur, in fact God expressed disapproval of annual Fast Days in Zachariah. The basis for making Yom Kippur a fast day is that the people were to "afflict your souls", fasting is a way to do that but not the only way (Jesus was afflicting His soul without fasting in Gethsemane). Either way it would be merely the 2nd or 3rd day of a two week festival being toned down by people doing whatever they feel is best to keep that command. Besides with what is supposed to go on in The Temple that day I could easily see it being treated as part of the Festival.
As far as the lack of Old Testament precedent they complain about, leaving Daniel aside for a moment.
Haggai 2:10-23 is a revelation God gave to Haggai on the 24th of Kislev, and it foretells that very day being a time to rededicate the Temple. Reading 1 Maccabees chapter 4 (it's at the end pretty much) it would seem the 24th was the day they were actually done rebuilding and cleansing everything, the 25th was the day the new Sacrifices were made.
The whole "Menorah burning for 8 days on 1 day's worth of oil" is a made up fairy tale from much later tradition. 2 Maccabees 10:1-8 tells us it was an 8 day festival because it was done in the manner of the Feast of Tabernacles. Some have conjectured the original logic was a counterpart for Tabernacles of the Second Passover law from Numbers 9. One reason to make it two months later rather then one would be the Eight Month's affiliation with The Feast of Jeroboam. But if that was the only factor it'd have been on the 15th not the 25th. Haggai's prophecy I'm convinced is why this was when it was whether they knew it or not. Actually the text of Haggai in question discuses the same issues that make Second Passover necessary in Numbers 9, and since Haggai's previous vision was during Tabernacles, it seems valid to interpret him as validating a Second Tabernacles Law.
The Hebrew word Hanukkah (Dedication) first appears in The Bible in Number 7:84&88 ("Dedicating" was used twice much earlier in the same chapter) this Chapter is about the original Dedication of the Tabernacle and may be one likely drawn on at the first Hanukkah. That right after this Aaron is instructed to light The Menorah could be the original reason The Menorah became important to Hanukkah.
Also if you do the math in Genesis, the 26th or 27th of Kislev is when the 40 days of rain that caused the Flood stopped. And it's been popular to see the Nine Candle Menorah of Hanukkah foreshadowed by Zechariah 4.
Back to Daniel, some people, especially those who want to late date Daniel but knowing they can't make it too late due to DSS manuscripts. Will insist it discuses Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution, but not the Maccabees actual victory.
Daniel 11:32 "And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits." One Bible I have in it's marginal footnotes suggests "Take Action" as an alternate translation of "do exploits".
But more directly relevant to the idea of The Re-dedication being Biblical is Daniel 8:13-14.
The point is, that the Cleansing of The Temple in 164 BC was part of Bible Prophecy.
Josephus talks about the origin of Hanukkah in Antiquities of The Jews, Book 12, Chapter 7 in section 6 and 7, the last part of the chapter. He there directly links it to Daniel's Prophecy, which I will admit the Books of Maccabees failed to do.
An argument might also be made that John 10 doesn't tell us Jesus was celebrating or observing Hanukkah, He just happened to be there at that time.
During His ministry I find it interesting that Jesus was in Jerusalem only on Holy Days, with John in particular linking Holy Days to anytime He was even in Judea. In fact in the entire Gospel account of his life the only time we are told He was in Jerusalem when it wasn't specifically a Holy Day was to fulfill the Torah's law about being presented in The Temple 40 days after His Birth.
I'm convinced every detail of Scripture is there for a reason, and The Holy Spirit wanted us to take note of the fact that Jesus was in Jerusalem during Hanukkah.
I rant more against anti-Hanukkah Christians here.
Update 1/11/2016: I've found a site online called "Why Yahshuah Refused to Celebrate Hanukkah".
First of all "Yahshuah" is an interpretation of how to properly render Yeshua affiliated with a peculiar brand of the Sacred Name movement. So be warned.
First this site claims John 7 is about Hanukkah, (it talks about the connection between Tabernacles and Hanukkah that I talk about above), then says the John 10 reference is just continuing the same narrative. However an unqualified reference to Tabernacles always means the Tishri celebration just as an unqualified reference to a Feast of Dedication means the Kislev one. And John 10:22-23 stylistically is clearly the start of a new incident that clearly dates itself to a different time then what came just before.
This site actually claims The Jews of this period stopped observing Tishri Tabernacles all together and just replaced it with Hanukkah. There is no evidence of that, 2 Maccabees 10:6-7 says it was observed in the manner of Tabernacles but in no way says it replaced that feast.
Josephus has I'm pretty sure made clear references to Tabernacles still being observed in Tishri at this time. When Josephus describes the origin of Hanukkah which I mentioned above he doesn't mention the link to Tabernacles that only 2 Maccabees directly makes (Josephus seemed to only know 1 Maccabees) and only called it the Festival of Lights. So it's highly unlikely Josephus ever meant that any time he refereed to Tabernacles.
After making that argument they make a thing out of Jesus refusing to go up to the Feast when it started. Then says when He did show up He condemned them for not following The Law.
Read John 7 more carefully, He did go up at the same time his brothers did more or less, but was simply in secret till the midst of the Feast. And what Jesus talks about at this time the site misrepresents completely. He was observing that Feast as much as He was Passover during the Passion Week, where he also argued with the Pharisees and Sadducees.
As far as the lack of Old Testament precedent they complain about, leaving Daniel aside for a moment.
Haggai 2:10-23 is a revelation God gave to Haggai on the 24th of Kislev, and it foretells that very day being a time to rededicate the Temple. Reading 1 Maccabees chapter 4 (it's at the end pretty much) it would seem the 24th was the day they were actually done rebuilding and cleansing everything, the 25th was the day the new Sacrifices were made.
The whole "Menorah burning for 8 days on 1 day's worth of oil" is a made up fairy tale from much later tradition. 2 Maccabees 10:1-8 tells us it was an 8 day festival because it was done in the manner of the Feast of Tabernacles. Some have conjectured the original logic was a counterpart for Tabernacles of the Second Passover law from Numbers 9. One reason to make it two months later rather then one would be the Eight Month's affiliation with The Feast of Jeroboam. But if that was the only factor it'd have been on the 15th not the 25th. Haggai's prophecy I'm convinced is why this was when it was whether they knew it or not. Actually the text of Haggai in question discuses the same issues that make Second Passover necessary in Numbers 9, and since Haggai's previous vision was during Tabernacles, it seems valid to interpret him as validating a Second Tabernacles Law.
The Hebrew word Hanukkah (Dedication) first appears in The Bible in Number 7:84&88 ("Dedicating" was used twice much earlier in the same chapter) this Chapter is about the original Dedication of the Tabernacle and may be one likely drawn on at the first Hanukkah. That right after this Aaron is instructed to light The Menorah could be the original reason The Menorah became important to Hanukkah.
Also if you do the math in Genesis, the 26th or 27th of Kislev is when the 40 days of rain that caused the Flood stopped. And it's been popular to see the Nine Candle Menorah of Hanukkah foreshadowed by Zechariah 4.
Back to Daniel, some people, especially those who want to late date Daniel but knowing they can't make it too late due to DSS manuscripts. Will insist it discuses Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution, but not the Maccabees actual victory.
Daniel 11:32 "And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits." One Bible I have in it's marginal footnotes suggests "Take Action" as an alternate translation of "do exploits".
But more directly relevant to the idea of The Re-dedication being Biblical is Daniel 8:13-14.
"Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred mornings and evenings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."The Number 2300 mornings and evenings (1150 days) is the main reason this verse in it's details I feel applies more to Antiochus then The Antichrist, I like Chris White's explanation of it, It does fit to say the time from Antiochus' Abomination first being set up until the Maccabees rededicated The Temple. But it's pretty hard to make it line up perfectly with Revelation where it's always 1260 days or 42 months being mentioned.
The point is, that the Cleansing of The Temple in 164 BC was part of Bible Prophecy.
Josephus talks about the origin of Hanukkah in Antiquities of The Jews, Book 12, Chapter 7 in section 6 and 7, the last part of the chapter. He there directly links it to Daniel's Prophecy, which I will admit the Books of Maccabees failed to do.
An argument might also be made that John 10 doesn't tell us Jesus was celebrating or observing Hanukkah, He just happened to be there at that time.
During His ministry I find it interesting that Jesus was in Jerusalem only on Holy Days, with John in particular linking Holy Days to anytime He was even in Judea. In fact in the entire Gospel account of his life the only time we are told He was in Jerusalem when it wasn't specifically a Holy Day was to fulfill the Torah's law about being presented in The Temple 40 days after His Birth.
I'm convinced every detail of Scripture is there for a reason, and The Holy Spirit wanted us to take note of the fact that Jesus was in Jerusalem during Hanukkah.
I rant more against anti-Hanukkah Christians here.
Update 1/11/2016: I've found a site online called "Why Yahshuah Refused to Celebrate Hanukkah".
First of all "Yahshuah" is an interpretation of how to properly render Yeshua affiliated with a peculiar brand of the Sacred Name movement. So be warned.
First this site claims John 7 is about Hanukkah, (it talks about the connection between Tabernacles and Hanukkah that I talk about above), then says the John 10 reference is just continuing the same narrative. However an unqualified reference to Tabernacles always means the Tishri celebration just as an unqualified reference to a Feast of Dedication means the Kislev one. And John 10:22-23 stylistically is clearly the start of a new incident that clearly dates itself to a different time then what came just before.
This site actually claims The Jews of this period stopped observing Tishri Tabernacles all together and just replaced it with Hanukkah. There is no evidence of that, 2 Maccabees 10:6-7 says it was observed in the manner of Tabernacles but in no way says it replaced that feast.
Josephus has I'm pretty sure made clear references to Tabernacles still being observed in Tishri at this time. When Josephus describes the origin of Hanukkah which I mentioned above he doesn't mention the link to Tabernacles that only 2 Maccabees directly makes (Josephus seemed to only know 1 Maccabees) and only called it the Festival of Lights. So it's highly unlikely Josephus ever meant that any time he refereed to Tabernacles.
After making that argument they make a thing out of Jesus refusing to go up to the Feast when it started. Then says when He did show up He condemned them for not following The Law.
Read John 7 more carefully, He did go up at the same time his brothers did more or less, but was simply in secret till the midst of the Feast. And what Jesus talks about at this time the site misrepresents completely. He was observing that Feast as much as He was Passover during the Passion Week, where he also argued with the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)