Skip to main content <#maincontent>
We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!
Internet Archive logo A line drawing of the Internet Archive
headquarters building façade.
Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass.
Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass.
Upload icon An illustration of a horizontal line over an up pointing
arrow. Upload
User icon An illustration of a person's head and chest. Sign up
| Log in
Web icon An illustration of a computer application window
Wayback Machine
Texts icon An illustration of an open book.
Books
Video icon An illustration of two cells of a film strip.
Video
Audio icon An illustration of an audio speaker.
Audio
Software icon An illustration of a 3.5" floppy disk.
Software
Images icon An illustration of two photographs.
Images
Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape
Donate
Ellipses icon An illustration of text ellipses.
More
Hamburger icon An icon used to represent a menu that can be toggled by
interacting with this icon.
Internet Archive Audio
Live Music Archive Librivox Free
Audio
Featured
* All Audio
* This Just In
* Grateful Dead
* Netlabels
* Old Time Radio
* 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
Top
* Audio Books & Poetry
* Computers, Technology and Science
* Music, Arts & Culture
* News & Public Affairs
* Spirituality & Religion
* Podcasts
* Radio News Archive
Images
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Featured
* All Images
* This Just In
* Flickr Commons
* Occupy Wall Street Flickr
* Cover Art
* USGS Maps
Top
* NASA Images
* Solar System Collection
* Ames Research Center
Software
Internet Arcade Console
Living Room
Featured
* All Software
* This Just In
* Old School Emulation
* MS-DOS Games
* Historical Software
* Classic PC Games
* Software Library
Top
* Kodi Archive and Support File
* Vintage Software
* APK
* MS-DOS
* CD-ROM Software
* CD-ROM Software Library
* Software Sites
* Tucows Software Library
* Shareware CD-ROMs
* Software Capsules Compilation
* CD-ROM Images
* ZX Spectrum
* DOOM Level CD
Books
Books to Borrow Open Library
Featured
* All Books
* All Texts
* This Just In
* Smithsonian Libraries
* FEDLINK (US)
* Genealogy
* Lincoln Collection
Top
* American Libraries
* Canadian Libraries
* Universal Library
* Project Gutenberg
* Children's Library
* Biodiversity Heritage Library
* Books by Language
* Additional Collections
Video
TV News Understanding 9/11
Featured
* All Video
* This Just In
* Prelinger Archives
* Democracy Now!
* Occupy Wall Street
* TV NSA Clip Library
Top
* Animation & Cartoons
* Arts & Music
* Computers & Technology
* Cultural & Academic Films
* Ephemeral Films
* Movies
* News & Public Affairs
* Spirituality & Religion
* Sports Videos
* Television
* Videogame Videos
* Vlogs
* Youth Media
Search the history of over 835 billion web pages
on the Internet.
Search the Wayback Machine
Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass.
Mobile Apps
* Wayback Machine (iOS)
* Wayback Machine (Android)
Browser Extensions
* Chrome
* Firefox
* Safari
* Edge
Archive-It Subscription
* Explore the Collections
* Learn More
* Build Collections
Save Page Now
Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in
the future.
Please enter a valid web address
* About
* Blog
* Projects
* Help
* Donate
* Contact
* Jobs
* Volunteer
* People
* Sign up for free
* Log in
Search metadata
Search text contents
Search TV news captions
Search radio transcripts
Search archived web sites
Advanced Search
* About
* Blog
* Projects
* Help
* Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape
* Contact
* Jobs
* Volunteer
* People
Full text of "History, Science And The Bible By Bahati Innocent
"
See other formats
HISTORY,
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE
HISTORY, SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE
By Elder Bahati Innocent
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without either the prior
written permission of the author
Copyright ©2023 Bahati Innocent ©Love Ministry
Ipecial Thanks te
Elizabeth Bosibori, Edwin Marube, the “Love Ministry”, Joseph Oluoch, Bradley Simiyu, Zachariah
Nyandusi, Omato Boaz, Christopher Nyakundi, Ombati Doris, Salome Njeri and Omore Tracy.
Dedicated ta
All the people in search for the message of truth from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
PREFACE
In this age of modern science, the harmonious intersection between the avenues of scientific disciplines,
history and Bible chronology is to be studied and their interaction fully explored. Different worldviews
have inevitably been seen in our interactions with people from various cultures and some endorsed by
many governments worldwide.
How can we fully understand the interdisciplinary connections between history, science and biblical
theology and ultimately their implications on our way of life? To answer this question, we need to dive
into the depths of their interconnection to unravel the mysteries of the universe through the lens of science,
history and the Bible. Also, as you read this book you should ask yourself this question, “Should there be
a conflict between science and the Bible?”
There is much debate in our world today between science and the Bible. Others suggest that science
should drive our understanding of religion. Still others argue that religion should drive our scientific
understanding. There are truly deep divisions in many senses as people claim different sources of
authority on these issues.
But there are many contrasting ideas that are presented in the popular discussions of this topic that need to
be carefully considered. Words have meanings, and we need to make sure that we are using our own
words in a manner that is clear and does not hide or change the meaning of certain terms and concepts.
We all recognize when a politician talks out of both sides of his mouth, but it can be a little harder to spot
when we see religious leaders and scientists talking in the same manner. While we can learn from those
who have studied various ideas, we need to be careful not to accept those ideas just because some
scientist, religious leader, or news analyst says something is so.
Everyone has a point he or she is trying to make. Many people will try to tell you that they do not have
such biases, but it is impossible to stay neutral: our thinking always begins from a specific starting point.
All of the arguments that we make are based on our worldview, and our worldview is based on specific
assumptions we believe to be true. The goal of this book is to explore some of those underlying
assumptions about science, world history and the Bible, and their implications for the arguments that are
often used in the broad worldview debates such as the creation-evolution debate.
Tragically, there has been much misreporting about the historical relationship between Christianity and
science. Thus it is necessary to refute some powerful yet untrue myths that have caused some to wrongly
see Christianity as suppressing the truth while science pursues it. As we continue to pursue scientific
understanding about the universe we live in, let us do so by building on the firm foundation of what God
has revealed to us in His Word. The God who has revealed Himself to us in the Bible makes science
possible. Let God be true and every man a liar.
INTRODUCTION
Part One: The Importance of History
History is the continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular group of people,
country or period. It provides a chronological, statistical, and cultural record of the events, people, and
movements that have made an impact on humankind and the world at large throughout the ages.
Why is the study of history important? It's the old maxim, whether it's church history or other history:
those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it. Virtually every heresy we face today is a rehash
of some heresy that the church has already had to deal with in history. God has preserved his church
through all the centuries, and we hope that by now we have learned something. One of the great
weaknesses of the contemporary church is its detachment from its own history. As Christians, we ought to
study history as it gives us a purpose. History gives us hope. History gives us theological grounding. But
as much as anything, history reminds us that we live in the shadow of those who have come before and
that those who follow will, in turn, look back to us.
Part Two: History and Bible Chronology
The Bible provides a reliable history of the universe and the events described in the Bible, particularly in
the early chapters of Genesis, providing a framework through which we can interpret science and history.
The age of the earth is one of the most contentious issues in the creation/evolution debate. In today's
culture, the thought of creation occurring about 6000 years ago is frequently mocked by non-Christians —
and also many professing Christians. This book outlines the differences between empirical and historical
science, how predictions can be helpful in the sciences, and how worldview affects our perspective about
the past.
Part Three: The Elements of Chronology
I. INTRODUCTION
The harmony of the time statements in the Scripture strengthens our confidence in the accuracy of the
inspired Word, but chronology is not essential to salvation. That is evidently why God did not see fit to
fill in all the details of chronology. There are some points left open for personal opinion as to the exact
dating, and different writers among us have at various times used differing dates. This is not to say that
historical dates do not help us sometimes in our search for deeper spiritual truth, or that those few
connected with exact prophetic periods are unimportant; but prophetic landmarks are well established,
and other historical dates are rarely questions of theological importance. To dogmatize on chronology, or
to attempt to fix every date once and for all, would be not only presumptuous but impossible. This
introductory section, and the following ones in succeeding chapters, will endeavor to provide a general
outline and to explain certain basic principles. Many supposed difficulties have been cleared up by
increasing knowledge of ancient chronology. Although we cannot expect all authorities to agree in their
interpretation of the incomplete facts of ancient times, we can confidently expect future research to
strengthen the Bible record. Wherever this record can be adequately tested, it stands revealed as
trustworthy history. Its time statements are not haphazard or fanciful, but harmonious and reasonable.
3
Il. TIME MEASURED BY HEAVENLY BODIES
When God set this globe spinning on its axis and sent it on its yearly course around the sun, accompanied
by its smaller attendant, the moon, He decreed that these heavenly bodies should govern the earth’s day
and night, and, further, that they should be “for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years” (Genesis
1:14). Thus time is measured for the earth by these motions. The ancients watched the skies for signs and
seasons, for the time of day, and for the beginning of the month. Today the astronomers in the great
observatories train their telescopes on the stars to regulate the time signals that set our clocks.
The Day Measured by the Earth's rotation - As this planet turns on its own axis, floodlighted by the
sun, half the globe is in the light and the other half in the shadow. That is, there is day on one side and
night on the other. For “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night” (Genesis 1:5). As we,
on any given spot on this spinning globe, are carried eastward, out of the sunlight and into the shadow, we
say that the sun is setting in the west. Then, following our all-night swing around the dark portion, we
come again to the light. We see the sun once more at the dividing line that we call sunrise. As our local
spot approaches the point directly opposite the sun, that fiery orb appears to rise higher in our sky until it
is on our meridian at noon. Then it appears to decline as we move farther around the sunlit side, and we
complete one circuit as we again reach the sunset line—the edge of the shadow. The ancients needed no
clocks to tell them when they passed the boundary line between day and night—sunrise began the day and
sunset ushered in the night.
“Are there not twelve hours in the day?” asked Jesus (John 11:9). And so it was, for in His time an hour
meant one twelfth of the interval—varying with the seasons—between sunrise and sunset. But “day” has
another meaning also. A period marked off by five days, or any number of days, cannot disregard the
intervening nights. Therefore a day in the calendar is measured by one complete rotation of the earth on
its axis, including a day and a night. For the Hebrews the starting point was sunset. Each full day ran
evening-morning, dark-light, night-day (Leviticus 23:32; 22:6, 7; Mark 1:21, 32). Also certain other
ancient peoples, like the Babylonians, began their day at sunset, although the Egyptians counted from
sunrise. Our modern midnight-to-midnight reckoning came from the Romans.
The Month Governed by the Moon - Just as one complete rotation of the globe on its axis, from sunset
on to sunset again, marks off one day on this earth, so the time required for the moon to go once around
the earth—that is, to pass through its visible phases, as from crescent to full moon and to crescent again—
constituted the original month. The ancient lunar month did not begin at the astronomical new moon,
when that body stands between the earth and the sun—with its unlighted side toward us, and hence
invisible—but one or more days later, with the appearance of the new crescent. Now, however, most of
the world uses artificial calendar months that disregard the moon.
The Year Measured by the Sun - As our spinning earth, circled continuously by the moon, traverses its
vast course around the sun, it makes the circuit of the four seasonal landmarks—the summer and winter
solstices and the spring and autumnal equinoxes—to complete what we call a year. These points do not
mark off the year as visibly as the moon does the lunar month, yet even relatively primitive peoples can
recognize them by repeated observation of the shadows cast by the sun at rising, setting, and noon
throughout the year. At the summer and winter solstices occur the days of longest and shortest sunlight,
when the sun is seen farthest north and farthest south in the sky; at the spring and fall equinoxes, when
day and night over the whole globe are equal, the sun rises directly in the east and sets directly in the west.
And despite the difficulty in determining the precise length of the year, the veriest savage can tell its
passage by the cycle of the seasons, marked by unmistakable signs.
The Week not Marked by Nature - Only the week, measured by divine command, has no natural
landmark. The three independent celestial motions—the daily rotation of our globe on its axis, the
monthly circuit of the earth by the moon, and the yearly revolution of earth and moon about the sun—
mark off our time, but there is no astronomical cycle connected with the seven-day week. Yet the Sabbath,
given in the beginning by the God of nature, definitely marked off by the manna, even before the law at
Sinai, is identified in the New Testament (Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 16:4, 5, 22-26; 20:8-11; Luke 23:54 to
24:1); since then we can count the weeks back into the past with certainty from known dates.
I. CALENDARS RECONCILE THE THREE MOTIONS
The three natural motions that measure our time are incommensurable, that is, do not “come out even.”
While the earth is making one revolution around the sun, the moon revolves around the earth 12 times and
about a third of a circuit over, and the earth turns on its own axis 365 times plus a little less than a fourth
of a turn. Therefore calendars have had to be devised in order to count years by a whole number of days
or lunar months.
Lunar Calendar Based on the Moon - A lunar calendar year of 12 moon months is 10 or 11 days
shorter than the true solar year, which governs the seasons. Hence in an uncorrected lunar calendar, like
that of the Moslems to this day, a summer month moves gradually earlier until it comes in the spring, and
so on. But the Babylonians, Assyrians, Jews, Greeks, and early Romans kept their lunar years in step with
the seasons by adding to the year periodically. The Jews, like the Babylonians, inserted an extra lunar
month 7 times in each 19 years.
Solar Calendar Measures the Sun’s Year - Our modern world today uses a solar calendar, that is, one
based on the sun’s year and disregarding the moon entirely. We do not need to add extra months, since
our ordinary 365-day year is only about a fourth of a day shorter than the true period of the earth’s
journey around the sun, but we correct it every four years (with certain exceptions) by adding one day to
February. Our New Year’s Day now comes about ten days after the winter solstice; but if we should drop
the leap-year system, the New Year would move one day earlier every four years. Eventually the
alignment of the months with the seasons would be noticeably different from what it is now.
This was what happened to the ancient Egyptian year, from which our modern year was derived. This
Egyptian calendar year of exactly 365 days was divided into twelve 30-day months plus 5 extra days at
the end. The leap-year correction was never made until the country was conquered by the Romans less
than half a century before Christ.
This was soon after Julius Caesar had adapted the Roman months to the 365-day year, which he
introduced from Egypt, with the addition of a day every four years. Our present calendar is essentially
Caesar’s “Julian” calendar, months and all, with a further slight adjustment.
NOTE: Astronomers came to realize that the insertion of an extra day in every fourth February was a little more than was needed
to keep the calendar year from slipping constantly earlier in the seasons. Since too many leap-year days had been added, the
calendar year was beginning noticeably later than it should. So in 1582 a correction was made in order to move the calendar
year back ten days to put the spring equinox on March 21, its supposed date in A.D. 325, when the present Easter rule was
adopted. Pope Gregory XIII decreed that ten days should be dropped out of the calendar, so that the day following Thursday,
October 4, was called Friday, October 15, instead of Friday, October 5. Further, in order to avoid a similar error in the future,
the century years not divisible by 400 (as 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, etc.) were not to be leap years. The Catholic countries
accepted the “Gregorian” calendar immediately, but other countries followed much later—England and her colonies in 1752,
and eastern Europe only in the present century. In no case was the sequence of the days of the week disturbed, and no time was
“lost,” for the days dropped out had already been counted erroneously in the excess leap years through the preceding centuries.
Space has been given here to the explanation of the Julian calendar because modern historians date all
past events (up to the A.D. [Anno Domini] 1582 revision) in Julian years.
The Starting Points of Years - A year is a circle; the end of one is the beginning of the next, and there is
nothing in nature to indicate any one starting point. Sometimes the year is thought of as opening with the
beginning of the agricultural cycle of sowing and reaping, which itself varies in different parts of the
world. But a calendar year must have a definite point of departure. Four landmarks of the solar year have
been mentioned—the solstices and equinoxes. Ancient calendar years were often begun at or near one of
these easily observable points. Our own year begins on January 1, near the winter solstice, because that
was approximately where Julius Caesar placed the Roman New Year’s Day in his calendar, which we
have inherited.
Other ancient calendars began the year in the spring or in the fall. In Palestine, it was natural to think of
the year as beginning in the fall, when the early rains brought new life to the country after the dry season,
without rain for several months, and when winter wheat and barley were sown; the harvests came in the
spring and summer, ending with grape gathering in the autumn. The Hebrews had two year reckonings.
One (instituted at the Exodus) was begun in the spring, for numbering the months and reckoning the
beginning of the series of sacred festivals; the other, the old civil year, started with the seventh month, in
the fall. These were lunar years, reckoned from the new moon, not from the equinox.
IV. DATING ANCIENT EVENTS BY YEARS
Ancient Year Systems - Various methods of counting a series of years were in use in ancient times. In an
earlier period, a year was designated by the name of a principal event, or sometimes by the name of an
annual official. In Assyria, this was an honorary official, called a limmu; in Athens and in the Roman
world, the names were those of genuine annual magistrates—in Athens an archon and in Rome the two
consuls. In the Near East, calendar years were numbered in series during each king’s reign, and thus
called regnal years. In the Bible (though not in the first five books) we find regnal-year dates, such as “in
the seventh year of Artaxerxes.”
If men had begun at creation and counted year 1, year 2, and on continuously, and if the Bible records had
been dated by such a system, it would be a simple matter to know exactly how long ago any event
happened. But no such information exists. Not until relatively late in ancient times, long after the period
covered in this introductory section, did anyone use an era for dating, that is, a continuous series of years
numbered consecutively from one starting point. For example, the Seleucid Era was a continuation of the
reign of Seleucus I, one of the successors of Alexander the Great. The year 1 of this era began, according
to the Macedonian calendar, in the fall of the year that we now call 312 B.C. The Seleucid Era was used
in Syria and Mesopotamia for many centuries. The Greeks long employed a series of four-year periods
called Olympiads, marked off by the quadrennial Olympic games, and the Romans used a system of
numbering years consecutively from the supposed founding of Rome. Both these series, unlike the
Seleucid Era, were devised centuries after the quite uncertain traditional dates of the events from which
they were supposed to be reckoned. They were not used in everyday dating formulas—only for referring
to historical events.
Our System of B.C. Dating - Today the greater part of the world uses, or is familiar with, the dating of
the Christian Era, by which all years are numbered from approximately the time of the birth of Christ.
This book is being written in the year known as A.D. (for anno Domini) 2023. This means “in the year of
(our) Lord 2023,” that is, the 2,023" year from the birth of Christ. To be more exact, it is the 2,023" from
the point assigned to the nativity by Dionysius Exiguus, the 6th-century originator of this method of
reckoning. The fact that the traditional starting point is now known to have been several years away from
the actual date of Christ’s birth does not affect the usefulness of this scale of years for dating purposes.
When it became the custom to date events by the number of years from the supposed time of the birth of
Christ, it became convenient to date earlier events as so many years “before Christ” (abbreviated B.C.).
Thus for historical purposes the Julian calendar years, in which dates had been reckoned in the Roman
world since Julius Caesar’s day, were extended backward, as if they had existed in all past time. When we
say, for example, that the first year of Ptolemy’s “Era of Nabonassar” began February 26, 747 B.C., we
mean that it began on the day that would have been called February 26 if the Julian calendar had been in
use at that time, and in the 747th year before the year that was later to be numbered the first of the
Christian Era.
It is to be remembered that historians and chronologists have given the year preceding A.D. 1 the
designation of 1 B.C., and the year preceding that 2 B.C., and so on.
NOTE: One point must be borne in mind: In reckoning an interval between a B.C. and an A.D. date, computation is hindered by
the fact that in the chronological scale there is no year numbered zero between 1 B.C. and A.D. 1. Therefore, for convenience in
calculation, astronomers use a slightly different system. Instead of B.C. and A.D. they use negative and positive numbers, with
the year preceding year 1 numbered as zero. The positive numbers are the same as the A.D. numbers, but 0 corresponds to I B.C.,
-1 corresponds to 2 B.C., -2 to 3 B.C. etc., as the following diagram shows:
Astronomical | -4 3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Chronological |5 B.C. |4B.C. |3B.C. |/2BC. |1BC. |AD.1 | AD.2 | AD.3 | A.D.4
Thus when an astronomer speaks of an eclipse that took place in the year -567, he means the year that historians and
chronologists call 568 B.C. (Note that the minus number is always one less than the corresponding B.C. date. Note also that the
leap years, from A.D. 4 on the present, come in years whose numbers are divisible by 4, but that before Christ the leap years run
0, -4, -8, etc., that is, 1 B.C., 5 B.C., 9 B.C., etc.) The astronomical numbering is rarely found outside of technical astronomical
works. Histories and reference books use the B.C.—A.D. scale, which has no zero year—a deficiency that must be kept in mind in
calculating intervals between B.C. and A.D. dates.
Just as years B.C. run “backward,” that is, 1900 B.C. is followed by 1899, 1898, 1897, etc., so do the
centuries—the 16th century B.C. runs from 1600 through 1599 and down through 1501; the 5th century
B.C. runs from 500 through 401 B.C.
The B.C. Dating of Old Testament Events - It is possible to date Old Testament events in the B.C. scale
only where there is a time statement that can be equated with a known historical date. Astronomical
calculation can be used to fix a date for which we have ancient eclipse records or observations of the
heavenly bodies, and sometimes a date that is given in two calendars. Thus we have synchronisms
between the years of the last kings of Judah and certain years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Since the
years of Nebuchadnezzar are known from astronomical data found by archeologists in Babylonia, also
from observations recorded in Ptolemy’s astronomical work known as the Almagest, and from his canon
of the kings, the years of these kings of Judah can be aligned with the B.C. dating. Also we have an
indirect contact with the Assyrian limmu lists by means of a reference to Ahab in the Battle of Qarqar
(mentioned, however, only in non-Biblical documents). But for the early Biblical dates we are dependent
on tracing back the line of Bible time-statements from these later more certain dates, and there is room for
difference of opinion in this process. Specific information is scarce, and systems of reckoning vary; hence
our knowledge of ancient chronology has accumulated gradually and is still far from complete.
A.M. Dating From Creation - Genesis furnishes no era dating, but older chronologists counted years
from Creation as anno mundi (“in the year of the world,” abbreviated a.m.) 1, 2, etc., based on the
patriarchal genealogies. These genealogies, if complete and if correctly interpreted, would give exact
intervals from Adam to Abraham. But an a.m. scale requires a fixed starting point. Each writer’s B.C.
date for a.m. 1 (1) varies with his choice of the Masoretic or the LXX figures (nearly 1,500 years’
difference), and (2) his interpretation of these and all other OT chronological data. For this reason an a.m.
date has no basis other than the writer’s theory.
Marginal Dates in Printed Bibles - A.M. dates taken from Archbishop James Ussher’s Annals
(published 1650-58) were the first to appear in the margin of the KJV. The KJV carried no dates
originally, and was not the first Bible to present those of Ussher, which had been printed in the margin of
a French Catholic Latin Bible in 1662. Ussher’s dates (a.m. only) appeared in an Oxford Bible in 1679,
with the figures revised in spots by Bishop William Lloyd; his a.m. and B.C. dates were incorporated
(probably by Lloyd also) into a London edition of 1701. Thenceforth these dates, generally credited to
Ussher but partly revised, and inserted without any official authorization, continued to be printed until
they were almost viewed as a part of the Bible by generations of readers.
In the latter part of the 19th century, many Bibles included new chronological tables based on later
knowledge, while retaining the old “Ussher” dates in the margin or omitting them entirely. In the 1950’s a
modernized set of marginal dates came out in a new KJV edition. Similar ones appeared as late as 1974 in
a Collins edition of the KJV (although most Bibles by then had no marginal dates): Events before David
are dated only by centuries, and later dates differ from Ussher’s, though not consistently. In Ezra 7, there
appears a curious shift; Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem is dated 428 B.C., long after Nehemiah’s arrival. This
is based on a theory that, contradicting the Bible account, puts that event in the 37th, not the 7th, year of
Artaxerxes.
Part Four: Chronology in the Bible Record
In view of all the differing ancient systems of chronology and of the numerous theories of later
interpreters of the Bible, it becomes necessary to consider the methods to be used in assigning B.C. dates
to the Old Testament events, particularly down through the Exodus to the end of the 40 years’ wandering.
This dating hinges on two points: (1) the text in which the source information is found, and (2) the
problem of the meaning of the time statements in that text.
I. TIME STATEMENTS IN GENESIS
The Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint Texts - The original text of our Old Testament, except a few
chapters, was written in Hebrew. The translations in use today are made almost entirely from the
Masoretic text, which has been handed down by the Jews through the centuries, copied from one
manuscript to another with scrupulous care.
In Genesis, the years of the patriarchs in the Hebrew text differ from those in the Samaritan Pentateuch, a
variant form of the Hebrew text preserved by the half-Jewish, half-pagan Samaritans. Different from both
of these are the figures in the Septuagint, a Greek translation begun in the 3" Century B.C. in Alexandria.
It gives higher figures for several patriarchs, inserts a second Cainan after Arphaxad, and shows other
differences.
The totals from creation to the Flood are: Hebrew, 1,656 years; Samaritan, 1,307; Septuagint, 2,242 (or
2,262; manuscripts vary); from the Flood to Abraham: Hebrew, 352 years; Samaritan, 942; Septuagint,
1,232 (or 1,132).
Since the oldest known Masoretic manuscripts of the Pentateuch are late copies, more than 1,000 years
away from the originals, some scholars have thought that the figures’ for the patriarchs had become
changed since the time when the Septuagint translation was made. But the age of a manuscript is not the
sole deciding factor. The later of any two copies may preserve the wording of a text much nearer to the
unknown original than a much older manuscript copied carelessly or from an old but already corrupted
text. Thus, the work of the “lower” or textual critic involves determining, from various kinds of evidence,
which form of the text has most likely been changed from the original.
For the ages of the patriarchs, the Samaritan text is less trustworthy than the Hebrew, because we find in
other places revisions of the wording to agree with their views. And the Septuagint translators, who
elsewhere (as in Daniel) injected their own ideas, are thus more likely than the meticulous Hebrew
copyists to present a revised form of the genealogy.
Reasons for Preferring the Hebrew Lists - Some Septuagint manuscripts, having Methuselah 167 at his
son’s birth, thus make him survive the Flood 14 years; other manuscripts, making him 187, avoid this
difficulty. Also, there are other reasons why the translators of the Septuagint version were more likely to
have changed the figures than the later Masoretes, who handed down the Hebrew text to us. The Greek-
speaking Jews who translated the Septuagint in Alexandria wished to win for it the respect of the learned
Greek world. It is known that they were much less strict about preserving the letter of the original than
were the Palestinian Jews. Their version was made for Greek-speaking readers. If they wished to make
the chronology of the earliest ages compare favorably with the beliefs of the current Alexandrian
philosophy and seem more reasonable to the Greek mind, they would naturally lengthen the periods as
much as possible, and smooth down the sudden drop, after the Flood, in the life span and the interval
from father to son; and that is exactly what their figures do, repeatedly running 100 years higher.
Some scholars have contended that the Septuagint was translated from the correct text, but that the
Masoretes, working this side of the time of Christ, made or perpetuated changes to discredit the
Septuagint because it was the version largely used by the Christians. But if this were so, why would the
Jews alter such minor points as the ages of the patriarchs and leave unchanged the 70 weeks and other
prophecies used by Christians to prove the Messiahship of Jesus? If the Masoretes copied their texts so
conscientiously as to retain, word for word, so many evidences against themselves, their text should be
preferred to that of the Alexandrian translators, who took liberties with the text to advance their own ideas.
This question cannot be settled with certainty. Though the Dead Sea scrolls sometimes support a variant
Septuagint wording, they have also confirmed the trustworthiness of the Masoretic Hebrew text, on which
have been based the most noteworthy and widely accepted translations, both Catholic and Protestant. This
book will follow that time-honored practice and base the discussion of the patriarchs on the Hebrew text.
Il. SOME PRINCIPLES OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY
In converting the time statements of the Bible into chronological computation, we must consider certain
general principles of the Hebrew language and mode of reckoning that apply to the Pentateuch and to
other scriptures as well. It should be kept in mind that the meaning of a sentence is not necessarily what
the words mean to us now, even after they are translated, but what the ancient writer meant when he used
those words. In the Bible, “son” may mean a grandson (Genesis 31:55, cf. v.43); “brother” may mean a
nephew or an uncle (Genesis 14:12, 16; 29:10-12). Even so simple a statement as the fact that Noah was
600 years old at the time of the Flood can be, and generally is, misunderstood.
The Method of Expressing Age - Noah was “six hundred years old”—literally, “a son of 600 years”—
when the Flood came (Genesis 7:6). What this phrase means is made clear in the same chapter by the first
complete dating formula given in the Bible: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second
month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up”
(verse 11). Therefore “‘a son of 600 years” does not mean that Noah was 600 years old as we understand it,
but that he was in his 600th year, still unexpired. In our modern reckoning we say that a child is so many
months old in his first year. He reaches his first birthday at the end of his first years, and he is not
considered one year old until that first birthday. But when he reaches that day, his second year begins. So,
he will one day be 21 years old, after he has completed his 21“ year; he will be 21 all through his 22™
year until upon its completion he is said to reach the age of 22. We would count Noah 600 years of age
only at the end of his 600" year, but the Hebrews counted him “a son of 600 years” in his 600th year (see
on Genesis 5:32).
Consecutive Ages of the Patriarchs - Just as Noah was “600 years old” in his 600th year, so Adam must
have been 130 years old in his 130th year when Seth was born (Genesis 5:3), and not what we call 130
10
years old. On this principle, Seth was born in the 130th year of the world (anno mundi or a.m. 130); thus
the sum of the ages of the patriarchs at the birth of each oldest son will furnish a continuous series of
years from the creation only.
NOTE: One point must be decided in numbering these years of the patriarchs. Is Adam’s 130th year, or a.m. 130, also counted as
Seth’s first year? Or does Seth’s count begin the following year, in a.m. 131? The first method, by counting one year twice in
each generation, will give an incorrect total of the years elapsed, for there will be an overlap of one year for each name in the
list. By the second method, the sum will give the equivalent of continuous reckoning by an era. The first cannot be correct in this
case because it would make Methuselah survive the Flood; by the second, method the last year of his life is the year of the Flood.
The second, then, must be the basis of the Genesis list. Therefore, Seth’s age at the birth of Enos is to be added to Adam’s 130
years.
We have no way of knowing just how the patriarchs themselves counted their ages at the time.
Presumably the years were not reckoned by birthdays, but by beginning each year of age at the beginning
of the calendar year, for Noah’s 601" year seems to begin at the Ist day of the 1st month (Genesis 8:13).
It has been the immemorial custom in the Far East to consider a child a year old in his first calendar year,
and to count him two years old on the next New Year’s Day, even a few days after his birth. Either the
patriarchs began the first year after the next New Year’s Day, or else the numbers were adjusted later,
when the list was made up, in order to avoid the overlap.
Inclusive Reckoning - But apparently the common usage in counting intervals of time was the inclusive
reckoning, that is, counting the incomplete days, years, etc., at the beginning and end of a period as if they
were whole units. The classic example is, of course, the three-day period of Christ in the tomb, from
Friday afternoon to Sunday morning (see “the third day,” “in three days,” and “after three days” all used
as equivalent expressions for the same period by the same writer: Matthew 17:23; 27:40, 63). The clearest
Old Testament example is in 2 Kings 18:9, 10, where “at the end of three years” is what we would reckon
as a two-year interval, but the usage occurs also in the books of Moses. Joseph put his brothers “into ward
three days,” but not three full days, for on “the third day” he bound Simeon and sent the others home
(Genesis 42:17-19); and “the second year after” the Exodus (Numbers 9:1) really means the year
immediately following it, the first year being the year in which the period began.
It is clear from source documents that not only the Jews but also other ancient peoples used inclusive
reckoning, by counting the beginning and end of a period. We find the Greeks calling the 4-year
Olympiad between Olympic Games a pentaeteris, or “5-year period,” and the Romans referring to the
winter solstice (then December 25) as “the eighth day before” January 1—the 8th counting both the 25th
and the Ist. Even in later times we find the looser reckoning in common speech, although in mathematical
computation the time elapsed would be calculated exactly.
Parts and Wholes - The Bible writers sometimes use another characteristically Oriental type of
expression—they name the whole period for the part, meaning actually the latter part of a period that has
already begun. For example, at Kadesh the Israelites were condemned to wander 40 years in the
wilderness (Numbers 14:33), that is, the remainder of that period, counted from the departure from Egypt.
Actually this was already in the 2" year and only 38 years were left from Kadesh to the final stage of the
journey (Deuteronomy 2:14). The 430-year sojourning of “the children of Israel” (Exodus 12:40)—
including the time from Abraham, long before there were any Israelites—can be explained as an example
11
of such reckoning. Also explained below are two cases of three sons listed for one birth year; yet they
were not triplets, and neither first-named son was the eldest.
The Oriental, generally less concerned with exact time than the Westerner, is more likely to use
approximate time statements and round numbers, and the reader of the Bible needs to keep this in mind.
But the Old Testament is far more specific in its time statements than any other ancient literary document.
I. THE LINE OF THE PATRIARCHS
0 Heaven and earth and Adam and Eve created Genesis 1:1
130 Seth born, son of Adam with Eve Genesis 5:3
235 Enosh born, son of Seth Genesis 5:6
325 Kenan born, son of Enosh Genesis 5:9
395 Mahalaleel born, son of Kenan Genesis 5:12
460 Jared born, son of Mahalalel Genesis 5:15
622 Enoch born, son of Jared Genesis 5:18
687 Methuselah born, son of Enoch Genesis 5:21
874 Lamech born, son of Methusaleh Genesis 5:25
930 Adam died at 930 Genesis 5:5
987 Enoch "walks with God" Genesis 5:23-24
1042 Seth died at 912 Genesis 5:8
1056 Noah born, son of Lamech Genesis 5:28-29
1140 Enosh died at 905 Genesis 5:11
1235 Kenan died at 910 Genesis 5:14
1290 Mahalaleel died at 895 Genesis 5:17
1422 Jared died at 962 Genesis 5:20
1557 Shem, Ham and Japheth born, sons of Noah (Noah still 500 | Genesis 5:32
years old, nearly 501)
12
1651
Lamech died at 777
Genesis 5:31
1656 Methuselah died at 969 and was the oldest man that ever | Genesis 5:27
lived.
1656 On the 17th (Septuagint: 27th) day of the 2nd month, the | Genesis 7:4-11
fountains of the great deep were broken up and the
windows of heaven opened.
1656 On the 17th day of the seventh month, Noah's Ark rested in | Genesis 8:4
"mountains of Ararat"
1657 Noah and his family left the ark (27th day of the second | Genesis 8:13-14
month)
1658 Arphaxad born, son of Shem (Shem 100 years old, nearly | Genesis 11:10
101)
1658 Arphaxad born, son of Shem Genesis 11:10
1693 Shelah born, son of Arphaxad Genesis 11:12
1723 Eber born, son of Shelah Genesis 11:14
1757 Peleg born, son of Eber Genesis 11:16
1787 Reu born, son of Peleg Genesis 11:18
1819 Serug born, son of Reu Genesis 11:20
1849 Nahor born, son of Serug Genesis 11:22
1878 Terah born, son of Nahor Genesis 11:24
1948 Abram born, son of Terah Genesis 11:26
1958 Sarai born, wife of Abram Genesis 17:17
1996 Peleg died Genesis 11:19
1997 Nahor died Genesis 11:25
2006 Noah died Genesis 9:28
2026 Reu died Genesis 11:21
2034 Ishmael born, son of Abram with Sarai's handmaiden | Genesis 16:16
13
Hagar
2047 Abram and Sarai renamed Abraham and Sarah by the | Genesis 17:5-15
LORD and Abraham circumcised
2047 Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed Genesis 19:24
2048 Isaac born, son of Abraham with Sarah Genesis 21:5
2049 Serug died Genesis 11:23
2083 Terah died Genesis 11:32
2085 Sarah died Genesis 23:1
2096 Arphaxad died Genesis 11:13
2108 Jacob and Esau born, sons of Isaac with Rebekah Genesis 25:26
2123 Abraham died Genesis 25:7
2126 Shelah died Genesis 11:15
2157 Shem died Genesis 11:11
2171 Ishmael died Genesis 25:17
2187 Eber died Genesis 11:17
2199 Joseph born, son of Jacob with Rachel Genesis 41:46
2216 Joseph sold by his brothers Genesis 37:2
2227 Joseph interprets the dreams of the butler and the baker | Genesis 41:1
while in prison
2228 Isaac died Genesis 35:28
2229 Joseph promoted to Pharaoh's second Genesis 41:46
2238 Jacob moved to Egypt at the age of 130 after 7 years of | Genesis 47:9; 45:11;
plenty and 2 years of famine when Joseph was 39 41:46
2255 Jacob died Genesis 47:28
2309 Joseph died Genesis 50:26
2365 Aaron born, son of Amram with Jochebed Exodus 7:7
2368 Moses born, son of Amram with Jochebed Exodus 7:7
14
2448 The Israelites left in a mass exodus from Egypt Genesis 15:13; 1
Kings 6:1
2487 Aaron and Moses died Deuteronomy 34:7
2448 The Israelites entered Canaan Joshua 4:19
2448-2884 Period of Joshua, Judges and Saul, first King of Israel 1 Kings 6:1; 2
Samuel 5:4
2853 Jesse begat David 2 Samuel 5:4
2883-2923 David reigned as king of Israel 1 Kings 2:11 (40
year reign)
2890 David moves his capitol from Hebron to Jerusalem 1 Kings 2:11
2923-2963 Solomon son of David reigns as king of Israel 1 Kings 11:42
2927 Foundation of Temple laid in the 4th year of Solomon's | 1 Kings 6:1
reign 480th year after the Exodus
The Patriarchs From Adam to the Flood - The list of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 begins with Adam,
then continues with Seth, born in Adam’s 130th year (or a.m. 130, according to those who construct an
a.m. scale of years), followed by Enos, born 105 years later, Cainan, 90 years after that, and so on to
Noah. For the age of Noah at the birth of Shem we must look elsewhere, for Genesis 5:32 says only that
“Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.”
NOTE: If 500 seems an unreasonable age for even a patriarch at the birth of his first son, it may be remarked that the record
does not state that he was childless that long. He could have had older children who died or who rejected their father’s message,
but we cannot speculate on that. In the absence of information to the contrary (as, for example, in the case of Seth), we assume
that each son named in the line was the oldest. Some have sought to reconcile the long life spans with later conditions by
reckoning months or some unit shorter than a year. The use of months would make the patriarchs fathers at the tender ages of
nine, seven, and even five! And what time unit between a month and a year has ever been known?
This might be taken to indicate that the sons were triplets, or at least that Shem was the firstborn; but a
comparison of Genesis 7:6 and 11:10 shows that Shem was not the eldest, born when his father was 500;
instead, he was 100 years old two years after the Flood (which came when Noah was 600), and hence was
born when Noah was 502 years old. Apparently Shem was named first because of his importance, which
depended not on his age but on the fact that through him the genealogy was carried on, and possibly
because through his line were descended the Israelites.
The B.C. dating of this patriarchal period is not possible to determine. The first links between Biblical
and B.C. dating come in the time of the kings of Israel and Judah.
The Chronology of the Flood - The Deluge lasted one year and ten days, from the 17th day of the 2nd
month in Noah’s 600th year to the 27th day of the 2nd month in Noah’s 601st year (see on Genesis 8:14).
15
Since it is not known what sort of calendar Noah used to calculate his month dates, opinions differ as to
what kind of year this was. The 150 days of the rising and prevailing waters, ending on the 17th of the 7th
month, constitute exactly 5 months. Therefore, each month had 30 days. Since this could not happen if the
months were regulated by the moon, which alternates 29 and 30 days, some would conclude that the
Genesis account is based on a solar calendar of 30-day months, like that of the Egyptians. In that case, the
duration of the Flood was either 370 days or, if 5 extra days were reckoned at the end of the year, as in
Egypt, it was 375 days. Others, however, think that a lunar year was intended, (see NOTE) and that the
ten days beyond one full year would indicate the difference between a lunar year of 354 or 355 days and a
solar year of 365 days.
NOTE: In that case the five consecutive 30-day months may have resulted from the use of the common method of determining the
lengths of the months by observation: If the new crescent was visible at the end of the 29th of the month, the next day was called
the Ist of the new month; if not, it was called the 30th and the next evening became the Ist of the month, and any error was
corrected at the next visible crescent. This argument is based on the supposition that the moon was obscured much of the time
during the stormy 150-day period of the Flood, so that a series of five 30-day months may have accumulated before the reckoning
could be adjusted. A different lunar-month scheme, placing certain Flood-year dates on the Sabbath, is unprovable.
The Septuagint apparently means to imply that the original total represented a lunar year plus ten days, for
it changes the duration to exactly one calendar year by translating the ending date as the 17" day of the
2™ month, the same day as the beginning, instead of the 27". This looks like replacing one lunar year and
ten days with one solar year, as more understandable in Egypt. There is insufficient basis, however, for
conjecturing an antediluvian calendar from these dates, or for speculating on whether the “second month”
was numbered from the spring or fall. Such considerations as the rainy season or the planting season in
Bible lands are hardly relevant, since later conditions cannot be compared to the climatic conditions
preceding or immediately following the Deluge. The month reckoning would probably be that of Moses
rather than that of Noah himself, and the spring-beginning year as a new reckoning introduced at the
Exodus may or may not have been used by Moses in writing Genesis.
The Patriarchs From the Flood to the Exodus - The patriarchs after the Flood are listed in Genesis 11.
Arphaxad was born two years after the Flood, when Shem was 100 years old, Salah was born 35 years
later, and Eber 30 years after that; and so the list goes on to Terah and Abram. However, Abram was not
born when Terah was 70; this is a case similar to that of Shem, for Abram, though named first, was not
the oldest son. When he was born his father was not 70, but 130 years old; for Abram was 75 when God
called him to go to Canaan and made a covenant with him after Terah had died at the age of 205 (Genesis
11:32; 12:1-4). Although the list of the patriarchs with their ages ends with Abram (chapter 11:26), we are
told that Isaac was born 100 years after his father (chapter 21:5), and Jacob 60 years after that (chapter
25:26).
The Genesis data on the patriarchs’ ages extend to Jacob’s entry into Egypt (chapter 47:9) at the age of
130. From this, it can be computed that he was 91 when Joseph was born (see on chapter 27:1), but
Joseph’s birth year offers no help in carrying the line farther; here the age data stops.
The interval from Jacob’s migration to the Exodus must be derived from the 430 years of Exodus 12:40,
41. Even with that, only if one can assume that no generation is left out in the lists of the patriarchs, is any
continuous count possible from Creation to the Exodus.
16
The Four Hundred and the Four Hundred Thirty Years - Abraham’s “seed” would be “a stranger in a
land that is not theirs,” would serve a foreign nation, and be afflicted; and the period was to last 400 years
(Genesis 15:13). That the whole duration of the sojourning, servitude, and affliction was encompassed in
the 400 years is not clear in the English, but it is indicated by the inverted parallelism of the Hebrew
sentence (see on Genesis 15:13). Isaac, the appointed seed of Abraham whose descendants would see the
complete fulfillment of this prophecy, was a sojourner, and began early in life to be “afflicted” by his
rival, Ishmael (Genesis 21:8-12; see on Genesis 15:13 for the 400 years). Ending also at the Exodus is a
period of 430 years covering the “sojourning” (Exodus 12:40), not merely the phases of servitude and
affliction. This is explained by a New Testament reference to the 430 years between the covenant with
Abraham and the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai, soon after the Exodus (see on Exodus 12:40 and Gal.
3:17).
Both these periods can be harmonized if the 430 years are counted from the call of Abraham, when he
was 75 years old, and if the 400 years are reckoned from 30 years later, that is about the time when Isaac,
as a small child, began to be persecuted by Ishmael after he was confirmed as the “seed” (Genesis 21:8-
12). The Hebrew people called themselves both the “seed of Abraham” and the “children of Israel,” and
Paul evidently interpreted the second phrase, used in Exodus 12:40, as meaning the first.
Two Hundred and Fifteen Years in Egypt - Popular and scholarly misunderstanding of these periods
covering the sojourning and affliction of the descendants of Abraham has caused chronological confusion
as to the time spent by Israel in Egypt. The interval between the call of Abram, at age 75, and the Exodus
was 430 years, of which 215 had passed when Jacob went into Egypt (25 years to Isaac’s birth in
Abraham’s century year, plus 60, Isaac’s age at Jacob’s birth, plus 130, Jacob’s age at his migration, a
total of 215 years). Therefore, the remainder of the 430 years, the Egyptian sojourn, was 215 years. If this
seems a rather short time in Egypt, it should be considered that Moses was the grandson (also great-
grandson) of Levi (Numbers 26:57-59), who entered Egypt as an adult. This fact would not fit into an
interval of 400 years, but would be quite possible for 215 years, according to Levi’s life span (see on
Exodus 6:16, 20).
Was it 430 full years from Abraham’s call to the Exodus, or 429 full years—430 inclusive, by the
reckoning most commonly used in Bible times? The latter would seem more likely if it were not for the
specific wording of the text: “At the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day”
(Exodus 12:41). This would seem to indicate 430 elapsed years, ending on the day of the Exodus. Thus,
the reckoning is considered exact rather than inclusive.
A.M. Dating Not Conclusive - Because the 430-year interval between Abraham’s years and the Exodus
appears to attach the latter to the patriarchal genealogies, some have concluded that a continuous a.m.
reckoning from creation can be linked with the B.C. dating. An a.m. Exodus date based on the patriarchs
is entirely inconclusive. It must be remembered that these genealogies do not necessarily represent a
complete year scale. Reasons have been given for preferring the ages of the patriarchs as given in the
Hebrew text rather than in the Septuagint version. However, in using either reckoning we cannot exclude
the possibility that some generations may not have been included. We remember that Luke lists the
second Cainan (Luke 3:36). The correctness of the ages of the individuals does not imply the
completeness of the list, for no total is given.
17
The Bible does not claim to be a complete record of all past history, and Bible genealogies do not always
include every link in the chain; the Hebrew often uses the word “son” to mean grandson or descendant.
This is evident in Ezra’s genealogy, which omits several links (Ezra 7:1-5; cf.1 Chronicles 6:7-9; Ezra
3:2); Matthew lists 14 generations from David to Christ, thus leaving out 4, for what reason he does not
tell us (Matthew 1:8, 11; cf.1 Chronicles 3:10-12, 15, 16). The fact that sometimes one Bible writer omits
what another includes does not invalidate the authority of either, but it should warn us against dogmatism
on the date of creation, the Flood, or the Exodus, or on any chronology based on genealogical tables alone.
Exact chronology is better reserved for the later centuries, where the Bible gives many exact time
statements and synchronisms that enable us to locate the B.C. dating of key events with certainty. If we
accept Luke’s second Cainan as indicating a link not mentioned in the Genesis list, we must lengthen the
period from creation to the Exodus by at least one life span—how much more we cannot know since Luke
gives no data for Cainan, and one omission implies the possibility of others. It is not necessary to suppose
that gaps of that kind would be either extensive or important, but we should refrain from dogmatizing on
the exact number of years between the creation and the Exodus, and from setting up any creation date
based thereon. (The date of creation cannot be derived from the Biblical data.)
With caution, then, as to attempting any a.m. dating, we may proceed to the Biblical reckoning of the
years of the wilderness wandering before taking up the theories by which various B.C. dates are assigned
to the Exodus.
The Reckoning of the Years From the Exodus - We find evidence of what approaches a reckoning by
an era during the time of the 40 years’ wandering. Shortly before the children of Israel left Egypt, the
Lord instructed Moses that “this month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first
month of the year to you” (Exodus 12:2), and then proceeded with directions for holding the Passover on
the 14th. The Israelites left Egypt immediately after the Passover, on the 15th (Numbers 33:3) of the
spring month then called Abib (Exodus 23:15; 34:18; Deuteronomy 16:1), but later named Nisan (Esther
3:7), and still so called by the Jews.
Other dates are mentioned in this year, which was evidently counted as the first of the series, for the next
year is called the second. The list of dated events shows this in tabulation:
Passover observed (Exodus 12:2, 6)........cc:ccccccceees 1 13 *
Departure from Egypt (Numbers 33:3)... 1 15
Manna given in Wilderness of Sin (Exodus 16:1)... 2 15
Arrival at Sinai (Exodus 19:1)... cece eeeeeeee 3 ---- eg
(Moses’ two 40-day periods on the mountain—Exodus 24:18;
(Making of the tabernacle and equipment)
18
Tabernacle erected (Exodus 40:1, 2, 17)... 1 1 oe
Passover enjoined (Numbers 9:1, 2).......ceeeeeeeees 1 ---- pi
Passover observed (Numbers 9:5), evidently first time since Exodus (cf. | 1 14 ----
VS. 6-14). eeeeeees
Numbering of men directed (Numbers 1:1)........... 2 1 oe
Departure from Sinai (Numbers 10:11), nearly a year after arrival..... 2 20 on
(Spies sent out in time of first ripe grapes, i.e. late summer—Numbers
13:17-20)
(Return of spies to Kadesh 40 days later; Israel sentenced to 40 years’
wandering—Numbers 13:25, 26; 14:33, 34)
From Kadesh to crossing of Zared, 38 years (Deuteronomy 2:14)
Death of Aaron on Mt. Hor (Numbers 33:38)...... 5 1 40"
Israel at Zared (Numbers 21:12) after Aaron’s death (cf.Numbers 20:27- | 6 n--- 40"
295 21:4-11) ee eeeeeetteeneees
(Moses’ death; 30-day mourning—Deuteronomy 34:7,8)............+ 12 n--- 40"
Crossing of Jordan and encampment before Jericho (Joshua | 1 10 41“
ANDY cseiscauis ances
Passover kept in the Promised Land (Joshua 5:10) ---- 14 a
Manna ceases (Joshua 5:11, 12), on 40th anniversary of the | ---- 15 aq
EXOGUS i325, Aieiedss vere ss geceaseeereseeees
Note that the “second year,” on the first day of which the tabernacle was erected, had already begun
before the first anniversary of the Exodus, for the Israelites did not leave Egypt until the 15th of the Ist
month, after half the month was past. This day of the erection of the sanctuary was the Ist of the divinely
appointed 1st month, for it is the month of the Passover. It is evidently the first Abib since the departure
from Egypt (see on Exodus 40:2 and Numbers 9:1, 2), for no one would argue for a stay of nearly two
years at Sinai (see on Numbers 10:11). So “the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt”
(Numbers 9:1) meant the year immediately following the one in which the Exodus took place. It has been
pointed out that in the commonly used inclusive reckoning, expressions translated “after” often mean
“within.” Indeed, the preposition used in this phrase “after they were come out”—literally “for them to
come out,” or “of their coming out”—is elsewhere rendered “within” a given time, as in Ezra 10:8.
The years as reckoned from the Exodus, then, were spring-beginning years, and the first of the series was
the one in which the Hebrews left Egypt. If this series of years from the Exodus had been continued as an
19
era for dating subsequent events, it would have greatly simplified the problem of Old Testament
chronology. Unfortunately it was not so used, although the record of the sequence must have been kept,
for we seem to find one more reference to it, in connection with the date of Solomon’s Temple.
IV. THE B.C. DATE OF THE EXODUS
The Problems in Dating the Exodus - It has been made clear why any A.M. dating, reckoned forward
from creation and based on the assumption that the genealogies are complete, is only conjectural. We are
in a better position to reckon backward to the patriarchs from later and better known periods, though not
with complete certainty. The 430-year span from the Exodus back to Abraham locates that patriarch in the
B.C. scale with the same degree of certainty as can be assigned to the year of the Exodus, depending on
which of several methods one uses to arrive at a B.C. date for that event. From the Exodus, the forty years
of wandering are numbered continuously, as in an era; then in the conquest of Canaan and the time of the
judges there are various periods, some of which obviously overlap. If the information were complete and
precise down through the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, to the time when the line of Bible dating joins the
fixed dates of ancient history, the B.C. date of the Exodus and many other events would be unquestioned.
But even among those who accept the Bible data as correct, there are differences of opinion as to the
period of the judges, for example, and the rather complicated interrelations of the reigns of the two
kingdoms. This book, incorporating what seems a reasonably workable chronology built on Bible time
statements, does not set forth a dogmatic statement of the case. The last word has not been said on this
subject, because future discoveries may add to our exact knowledge of those ancient times. But if any
dates at all are to be included for the reader’s convenience, one system must be followed consistently.
The B.C. date of the Exodus presented in this book has been chosen out of many advocated by different
scholars because it seems, at present, to be the best explanation of the Bible data in relation to the
available information, and it harmonizes with the chronology adopted for chapters covering the period of
Israel and Judah. In order to evaluate this Exodus dating, a brief outline of the historical background of
Egypt must be sketched here introductory to a survey of the principal theories of the Exodus, with a
summary of the difficulties of each and the reasons why the 15th-century date is chosen.
The Historical Background in Egypt - The Middle Kingdom in Egypt began during the Eleventh
Dynasty. The first 150 years of the Twelfth Dynasty, which began in 1991 B.C., were the peak years, the
classical period of Egyptian culture. At its end, Egyptian power declined. The Thirteenth Dynasty was
restricted largely to southern Egypt, and the contemporary Fourteenth Dynasty in the north was weak.
After a period of preliminary infiltration, the country was overrun in the latter half of the 18th century by
the Hyksos, whose rulers, the “Shepherd Kings”—a title more properly translated as “rulers of foreign
countries”—formed the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties. These conquerors, predominantly Semites
from the eastern Mediterranean lands, probably included also non-Semitic Hurrians. Little is known of the
Hyksos from the few records they left. They were not barbarous, for they probably introduced the horse
and chariot, which the Egyptians afterward used to advantage in building their Asiatic empire. The
Hyksos became Egyptianized, adopting Egyptian titles. They ruled as Pharaohs from a capital, called
Avaris, in the Delta.
20
During the first half of the 16th century, the first king of the Eighteenth Dynasty drove the hated
Hyksos—at least the ruling class—into Palestine. Egypt, again powerful, extended her sway over
Palestine and Syria to the Euphrates. Great wealth went into vast building operations. A notable ruler of
this dynasty was Queen Hatshepsut, who was associated on the throne with her husband Thutmose II (C.
1508-1504 B.C.), and her nephew Thutmose III. She was herself the real ruler from about 1500 until she
finally disappeared from history about 1482, probably disposed of by her co-ruler, Thutmose II, whom
she had kept so long in the background. After her death, her name was obliterated from many of her
monuments and inscriptions. Thutmose III (C. 1482-1450) expanded the empire of Egypt to an extent
never exceeded. The empire prospered through the reigns of Amenhotep IT (C. 1450-1425), and Thutmose
IV (C. 1425-1412) and well into the reign of Amenhotep III (C. 1412-1375). But in the latter’s declining
years, the expanding Hittite empire menaced Egypt’s northern holdings in Asia, the Habiru or the sa-gaz
plagued parts of Syria and Palestine, and many of the Egyptian-held cities fought among themselves.
Then came Amenhotep IV (C. 1387-1366), a visionary, unfit or unwilling to wield the strong scepter that
was needed to stave off decline. Taking the name Ikhnaton, he turned all his energies to religious reform.
Abandoning Thebes for a new capital dedicated to Aton (Aten), the sun disk, he suppressed all other cults.
Meanwhile his Asiatic empire melted away. He ignored the frantic appeals for help from his loyal vassals
in Palestine and Syria who were struggling against treachery and defection in the face of the menace of
the sa-gaz or the Habiru. Many of these letters were unearthed among the royal archives in the ruins of
Ikhnaton’s capital (archeologists refer to them as the Amarna Letters, from Tell el ‘Amarna, the modern
place name of the ruins).
After Ikhnaton, whose religious reform died soon after him, the dynasty ended with several minor
Pharaohs. One of these was the boy-king Tutankhamen, who has achieved latter-day fame through the
mere accident that his last resting place—probably modest in comparison with those of the great rulers—
escaped the depredations of tomb robbers.
Early in the Nineteenth Dynasty, under Seti I (1318-1299), Egypt began to regain a measure of control in
Palestine. The long and energetic reign of Ramses II (1299-1232) left a great impression on his age. From
the fifth year of his son Merneptah, we have an inscription on a commemorative pillar, or stele, indicating
that the Israelites were then already in Palestine—the first mention of the name Israel outside the Bible,
and the only one so far found in Egyptian records.
The Various Theories of the Exodus - The numerous Exodus theories differ in the placement of the
narrative in relation to the Egyptian dynasties as well as in respect to the reckoning of the 400 and the 430
years (whether including the time from Abraham or only the sojourn in Egypt). Aside from theories held
by few or now no longer considered seriously in scholarly circles, there are three principal classes of these
interpretations of the Exodus. These date the event respectively in:
(1) the 15th century B.C., under the Eighteenth Dynasty;
(2) the 13th century, during the Nineteenth Dynasty;
(3) two migrations, under the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties.
21
There are plausible arguments both for and against all these datings. The last, however, which puts Joshua
two centuries before Moses, does such violence to the Biblical record that it is out of the question for
anyone who is seeking to build a chronology consistent with the Biblical data as we have them.
Outmoded and Minority Views - The wide range of Exodus dating is illustrated by several theories
placing it as early as the 17th century and as late as the 12th. One theory dated the Exodus in 1612, during
the Hyksos rule in Egypt. This was based on a long reckoning of the period of the judges, assuming that
the alternating judgeships and intervals of oppression were successive, totaling nearly 600 years; it fitted
that into the 480-year period between the Exodus and Solomon by counting only the judgeships, not the
interludes. Since Solomon cannot be shifted far, the longer the preceding period of the judges, the earlier
the Exodus must be dated. Another early-Exodus theory had the Hebrews leaving Egypt as part of, or
along with, the defeated Hyksos in the 16th century (reminiscent of Josephus’ identification of the
Hebrews as the Hyksos). This required not 40 but 200 years of desert wandering in order to equate the
Hebrews with the Habiru. It cannot be made to harmonize with either the Bible or the historical
background, neither can the dating at the other extreme, a theory of a late 12th-century Exodus, in the
Twentieth Dynasty.
These three types of Exodus datings will suffice as examples of the range of variation; they need not be
examined since they receive little or no notice today. The three principal theories will be discussed next.
The Nineteenth-Dynasty Exodus - The “traditional” theory, long commonly accepted, was that Israel
was oppressed by Rameses II and left in his reign or that of his son Merneptah. This theory is still held by
many writers, both in its original form and as the second phase of a double Exodus. The choice of
Rameses as the Pharaoh of the oppression is based on the names of the cities of Pithom and Rameses,
built by Hebrew slaves; on Rameses’ capital being at Tanis, near Goshen; on the destruction of many
Palestinian cities dated by archeologists in the 13th century; on a 430-year stay in Egypt; and on various
elements of the archeological theories concerning that time, such as the late arrival of the Philistines, the
absence of earlier pottery in certain regions, and conclusions drawn from certain Egyptian military
campaigns. The unanswerable objection to this dating—if the Bible chronology is not to be ignored—is
Merneptah’s stele of the fifth year of his reign, referring to the Israelites as a people along with
Palestinian places conquered. The Israelites could hardly have been already in Palestine in the fifth year
of the Pharaoh of the Exodus even if they had migrated directly to Canaan. A desert wandering of 40
years (even if the vague meaning of “many years” is allowed) puts it completely out of the picture, to say
nothing of other objections to the theory, such as the genealogical impossibility of 400 years from Joseph
to Moses.
The Theory of a Double Exodus - A Nineteenth-Dynasty Exodus, along with a 15th-century invasion of
Canaan, is held today by many scholars who reconstruct the Biblical story completely, or rather separate
it into two waves of migration. There are various views as to which tribes went into Egypt and when they
left; as to which tribes never left Canaan or who may have remained in Egypt; or by what routes and in
what order they invaded Canaan. The mere impossibility of harmonizing such an Exodus with the 40
years or the 480 years is a minor objection indeed compared with the placing of Joshua 2 centuries before
Moses, and compared with the uninhibited reinterpretation of the Bible account in regard to the patriarchs,
the tribes, the geography, and the religion of the Hebrews.
22
This is not to belittle the scholarship that has been employed in this attempt to reconcile the Habiru
invasion and other evidence pointing to a 15th century Exodus with the building of store cities for Ramses
II and the late sacking of certain Palestinian towns. But the complexities of the various double-Exodus
theories need not be discussed here, for a conservative commentary is written to throw light on the Bible
account, not to revamp the story by conjecture to fit the selected historical setting.
The Eighteenth Dynasty Exodus Adopted in This Book - There remains the theory that places the
Exodus in the mid-fifteenth century (1445 B.C. or thereabouts). It has been adopted in this book chiefly
because of the intervals between this and later Biblical dates. It can be explained in terms of the Bible
narrative and the historical and archeological setting.
The date is based on a statement synchronizing the 480" year from the Exodus with the 4" year of
Solomon, in which the foundation of the Temple was laid in the month of Zif (1 Kings 6:1). This year
was, according to the chronology accepted for this book, 967/66 B.C., that is, the Jewish regnal year
beginning in the fall of 967 and ending in the fall of 966. Thus, the laying of the foundation in the month
of Zif (approximately our May) would have occurred in the spring of 966 B.C. Then Zif in the 1“ year, in
which the Israelites left Egypt, was 479 years earlier than 966, which is 1445 B.C. This can be computed
easily by the equation: If Zif in the 480" yr. = 966 B.C., then, going back 479 yrs. (479) Zif in the 1“ yr. =
1445 B.C.
And Zif in the 1“ year, beginning the 2" month, is the month immediately following Abib (or Nisan), in
which the Israelites left Egypt. So the Exodus, derived thus from the dating of Solomon’s 4th year as
967/66 B.C., would have occurred in the spring of 1445 B.C., if the 480th year is meant as an era date,
and not as a round number.
NOTE: If it is insisted that the 480 years are not to be counted inclusively, then the date would be 1446 B.C.—and some make it
1447 by counting 480 full years from 967 B.C.—but that would seem to disregard the original reckoning of the years from the
Exodus. For the Temple was begun “in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land
of Egypt,” literally, in the 480th year of their coming out of Egypt, and the Ist year reckoned from the Exodus was the one in
which the departure from Egypt took place; compare “the second year after” the Exodus (explained on pp. 186-188).
This 15th-century theory of the Exodus can be harmonized with the 400 and 430 years as reckoned from
Abraham. A 1445 Exodus would put Abraham’s migration to Canaan in 1875 B.C., and his journey into
Egypt soon after, at the very period from which we have an ancient record of a Semitic sheik traveling in
Egypt with his family and a large retinue as traders.
Joseph and Jacob, then, would be in Egypt 215 years before the Exodus, in the time of the Hyksos. The
high honors bestowed upon Joseph have been regarded as most likely under a regime in which the Asiatic
element predominated. Other details also fit into the picture. The statement that “Potiphar, an officer of
Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian,” bought Joseph (Genesis 39:1) indicates a non-Egyptian
dynasty; why else should it be noted particularly that the Pharaoh’s captain of the guard was “an
Egyptian”? Furthermore, the mention of horses and chariots (Genesis 41:43; 46:29) is regarded as
harmonizing better with the Hyksos period than an earlier one, for it is generally accepted that there is no
record of horses in Egypt before that time. Yet they were not imported rarities in Joseph’s day, for the
Egyptians sold their livestock, including horses, to the Pharaoh in exchange for food during the famine
(Genesis 47:17). For other points see on chapter 39:1.
23
The story of Moses and the Exodus can be fitted into the historical setting of the reigns of Thutmose I
through Amenhotep II. Thutmose I and Thutmose III carried on building operations by means of Asiatic
slave labor. Hatshepsut as Moses’ foster mother, Thutmose III as the king from whom Moses fled to
Midian, and Amenhotep II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus seem to fit the possibilities of the Bible story.
We have even the fact that the successor of Amenhotep II was an unforeseen heir to the throne—a
circumstance that would be expected if the eldest son had died in the tenth plague.
If the 40 years’ wandering ended and the invasion of Canaan began about 1400, the inroads of the
Hebrews were contemporary with the Amarna Letters. Although controversy has raged over the historical
connection between the names, it is not unlikely that the Hebrews were a part of the Habiru mentioned in
this correspondence as a menace to Syria and Palestine, for it was in this weak period of Amenhotep III
and of Ikhnaton’s indifference in regard to the affairs of the great Egyptian Empire that control of
Palestine was slipping out of the hands of the Pharaohs.
Objections to This Dating Considered - There are also objections against this 15th-century theory. It is
pointed out that the date does not fit the total of the periods mentioned in the book of Judges, or the 450
years of Acts 13:19, 20 (KJV), for it is keyed to the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1.
It is true that if all the year totals in Judges are considered successive periods, the sum is far beyond 480
years, but there is nothing in the book to rule out the conclusion that some of the judgeships were quite
possibly contemporary, in different parts of the country. Since the theories of an earlier or a later Exodus
dating must either squeeze the judges period into an impossibly small compass, or reconcile the 480 years
with approximately 600 years by eliminating certain portions from the whole period, as has been
explained, it seems reasonable to accept as literal the definite statement that Solomon began the building
of the Temple in the 480th year from the Exodus, especially since the date thus arrived at, can be
harmonized with the other data.
A 1445 Exodus admittedly makes it difficult to account for the 300 years mentioned by Jephthah (see
Judges 11:26), but it can be done by assuming a rapid disintegration after Jephthah, with short
contemporary judgeships.
As for the 450 years of Acts 13:20, there is a disagreement as to the original text of the statement, and
there are differing translations of it in various versions. One reading makes the 450 years the period of the
judges; the other, from different manuscripts, makes it the period preceding the judges. The second
reading, regarded as better by modern scholars, is certainly more ambiguous. A literal 450-year interval
between Joshua and Samuel cannot be fitted into the chronological scheme that puts the Exodus in the
15th century, for it is obviously incompatible with an interval of 480 years between the Exodus and
Solomon. Those who take the long chronology (with the 480 years exclusive of the periods between the
judgeships) use the 450 years similarly as the sum of only the actual administrations of the successive
judges. On the other hand, those who hold the view of overlapping judges, with a much shorter total
duration, can employ the 450 years, according to the other reading, as the period from the time of the
seed—the beginning of the 400 years reckoned from the time when Isaac was 5 years of age. They
account for the extra 50 years by the 40 years of wandering plus a hypothetical 10 years more before the
judges. Both theories have difficulties and elements of personal opinion. Therefore, it has been considered
that the best course is to leave this ambiguous and controversial period out of the discussion as not
positive enough to be used either for or against the theory of the 15th-century Exodus.
24
The Eighteenth Dynasty capital was at Thebes, several hundred miles from the land of Goshen. Yet the
Hebrews were living near the royal palace, according to the story of the birth of Moses and to the account
of the communication between Moses, the Israelites, and Pharaoh during the extended period of the
plagues (possibly as much as a year). However, there was nothing to prevent the use of a second royal
residence in or near the Delta at certain times, although there is no evidence for such a capital in the
period assigned to Moses.
The 13" Century advocates point out the Nineteenth Dynasty names of the cities of Pithom and Rameses.
However, the proponents of an earlier Exodus regard them as later forms substituted by scribes for the
earlier names of the same cities (for example, Rameses had previously been called Zoan, Avaris, and
Tanis). We might similarly speak of New York as having been founded by the Dutch, deeming it
unnecessary to use the old name, New Amsterdam. Indeed, those who take the name “Raamses” (Exodus
1:11) as evidence of the Exodus under Ramses II must also explain away “the land of Rameses” in
Joseph’s day (see on Genesis 47:11) by a similar method. Then, if the name of the land need not be
derived from the Pharaoh’s name, neither does the name of the city.
Some argue that the story of Joseph and his family’s migration to Egypt does not portray a Hyksos ruler
favoring fellow-Asiatics, but rather an Egyptian rewarding a Semitic benefactor for services rendered,
showing consideration to Egyptian prejudices by segregating the Hebrew shepherds in Goshen. The 15th-
century advocates reply, in favor of the Hyksos dating of Joseph, that a later Egyptian Pharaoh would be
too strongly anti-Semitic to bestow such high favors, and that the motive for the segregation may well
have been less to spare Egyptian sensibilities than to protect the Hebrew shepherds from the ill will of
their Egyptian neighbors. Similarly, Joseph’s treatment of his brethren, although cited as an objection,
illustrates the Egyptianized customs of Joseph himself, paralleling what might be expected from an
Egyptianized Asiatic king.
It may seem illogical to portray the nationalistic Egyptians as expelling the hated Asiatic Hyksos, yet
leaving in Goshen a community of Semites who had been favorites of the foreign regime. A possible
explanation would be that the Hyksos who were expelled were the oppressive ruling class, and that many
of their common people may have been left behind, regarded as harmless and possibly as a source of
forced labor. We know too little to dogmatize on the subject.
The absence of Biblical allusions to Egyptian overlordship or military activities in Palestine has been
considered out of harmony with the Israelite occupation of the land in the 15th century and onward.
Actually, the Israelites remained mostly nomadic hill dwellers until long after this period. They failed to
drive out the town dwellers, and settled down outside many of the fortified cities, the centers of Egyptian
control; and in the hills, they would hardly have been touched by Egypt’s coastal campaigns. Some of
Israel’s neighboring enemies mentioned in the Bible were possibly acting as vassals for Egypt.
The presence of late pottery in the cemetery of Jericho has been explained as belonging to later sporadic
settlements while the city lay in ruins.
Another argument of 13th-century advocates against an earlier entry of Israel is the view (based on
pottery bits found only on the surface, and not universally accepted) that Edom and Moab were not then
settled nations. If the Edomites and Moabites were nomads in the 13th century, the absence of pottery
from that period was to be expected.
25
It is not to be contended that all the Exodus problems (See NOTE) can be solved at the present time, but
the hindrances to arriving at a reasonable theory are not insuperable.
NOTE: Modern books that utilize the most reliable technical materials rarely deal with the pre-Exodus chronology because of
the lack of adequate data for the early period, and the differing theories of the Exodus date are of limited value to most readers.
H. H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua (London: Oxford University Press, 1950; 200 pp.), advocates a double Exodus, but is
valuable for its many footnotes to sources on various theories.
On the 15-century Exodus and invasion of Canaan, see J. W. Jack, The Date of the Exodus (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1925; 282
pp.), too early for much of the archeological evidence, but useful; Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones? (New Haven,
Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941; 306 pp.), includes a brief survey of the 15th-century theory, but prefers the
13th-century dating. John Garstang and J. B. E. Garstang, The Story of Jericho (2d ed., rev.; London: Marshall, Morgan, &
Scott, 1948; 200 pp.), offered evidence from their excavations for the fall of a strongly fortified city on that site about 1400 B.C.,
but that dating has now been revised by the more recent findings of Dr. Kathleen M. Kenyon. According to her preliminary
report, Digging Up Jericho (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1957), the walls of that city must be dated much earlier. Because
of erosion and destruction of the top levels, nothing seems to be left except a part of one house and pottery from the cemetery, to
indicate that Jericho had a population in the 14th century B.C.
The evidences examined seem to leave a 15th-century Exodus as a usable hypothesis for the purposes of
this book—within the possibilities of the Bible narrative, and reasonably workable for the present in the
framework of historical and archeological findings.
V. EARLIER CHRONOLOGIES PIVOT ON EXODUS DATE
Date of Creation Not Known - Those who attempt to trace Bible chronology from the creation to the
Exodus by the patriarchal lists, the Genesis narratives, and the 430 years extending from the call of
Abraham to the Exodus must assume that the patriarchal lists are complete. If the second Cainan (Luke
3:36) is added to the Hebrew list, if the possibility of gaps in the generations is allowed, or if the
Septuagint enumeration is used, the patriarchal period must be longer than according to the Hebrew text
(and the creation consequently earlier). Any B.C. dating of the patriarchs, by whichever method computed,
would depend on the B.C. date of the Exodus. The Exodus has been placed on the basis of two premises,
both to be discussed in this book: (1) the 480-year era from the Exodus to and including the 4th year of
Solomon (1 Kings 6:1), and (2) the location of Solomon’s 4" year by computation of the reigns of the
Hebrew kings down to the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The result, as has been explained, is an Exodus date
of 1445 B.C.
Since final conclusions cannot be reached, even by consistent computation from the Bible data, because
of the possible undetermined variations, this book does not attempt a complete chronology. Uncertainty is
better than mere conjecture or the blind acceptance of a theoretical scheme such as Ussher’s. Ussher
arbitrarily placed creation, and began his a.m. 1, on the evening before October 23 (the Sunday nearest
the autumnal equinox) in 4,004 B.C., that is, 4,000 years before Christ’s birth, which he dated at 4 B.C.
This was in harmony with the old 6,000-year theory that puts 4,000 years before Christ and 2,000 years
after Christ.
This “6,000-year theory” should be defined to avoid confusion: It is not to be equated with the phrase
“6,000 years” that has been used by many religious writers as a rough estimate of the time elapsed since
Adam. It is, rather, a prophetic theory: namely, the view that the six days of creation week followed by
26
the Sabbath, taken together with the statement that with God one day is as a thousand years and a
thousand years as a day (2 Peter 3:8), constitute a prediction that will world will last 6,000 years of sin,
with the seventh thousand as the millennial Sabbath of rest.
To say that the six days of creation week give no clue to the duration of this world is not to deny their
reality or to allow interpreting them as long ages. Acceptance of a literal creation does not require
assigning it to an exact year. The date of creation is not known, for the chronological data in the Bible is
not continuous or complete nor can it be computed from astronomical cycles.
NOTE: Unfortunately, some apologists seeking confirmation of the Bible have cited supposed astronomical cycles for proof of a
precise date for creation and the first Sabbath, overlooking the fact that cycles, like circles, have no beginning or end, and that
one can reckon back the regularly recurring intervals indefinitely into the unknown past without arriving at a clue to the actual
beginning. One such attempt at astronomical proof, occasionally cited even as late as around 1950, was the system of a supposed
astronomer, J. B. Dimbleby (1879), who set “a.m. 0” on Sept. 20, 4,000 B.C., allegedly established by cycles of planetary
motions.
It is true that astronomical cycles enable us to date certain ancient events (including some in the Bible) if
those events can be connected with contemporary astronomical records, especially of eclipses.
The first direct, contemporary links between Biblical years and the B.C. scale occur near the end of the
kingdom of Judah, about 600 B.C., in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, whose regnal years are
astronomically fixed. Some cite an earlier date, 853 B.C., as the death year of Ahab of Israel, but the
astronomical fix is not in that year; the synchronism depends on dead reckoning from an eclipse that
occurred nearly a century later. In any case, from the kings of Israel and Judah back to creation, the path
crosses too many areas where differences of opinion exist.
Approximate Early Dates Sufficient - Since we have a definite chronology for the later Old Testament
times, especially from the time of the great prophetic periods, we should be satisfied with approximate
dates for the earlier ages, where there is no fixed chronology that will pinpoint Biblical events. Estimates
around the time of the Exodus and on are probably not far wrong. Even the various datings of the Exodus
are not more than two centuries off in either direction from the dating adopted for this book. Earlier than
that a leeway of much more would be little enough. We may watch with interest the changes in historical
chronology for the more ancient periods, yet there seems little chance so far of harmonizing the early
dynasties of Egypt and Babylonia, for example, with the Bible chronology—if we take the Flood into
consideration. Also, the A.M. dating used in this book is approximate and not exact.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, even though Scripture does not profess to record all history.
It is heartening to see how, wherever valid tests can be brought to bear, the Scripture record stands
vindicated as accurate history. Chronology, the framework of history, is given to us in the Old Testament
in a form that must be translated into our mode of reckoning before we can learn its meaning; the brevity
and also sometimes the obscurity of the statements regarding it prevent us from claiming to have
complete knowledge, but it is certain enough in the later period—especially by the time of Daniel and
Ezra—to assure us that apparent difficulties are due to our lack of understanding.
Research based on archeology has solved many problems of chronology. We may hopefully anticipate the
solution of most of the remaining problems as research continues.
27
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFA CB vies ccsietils davon charset ees ened ogee hae eave dhe eee ad eee eevee ee eae 2
TIN TRODU CTION 8. sce ceccacsd suet eind canesen saad gesal ectetute ibaded enkedich vane qndadvehe date nhadetandnnean thant asunductstvm eine ducdeusees 3
Part One: The Importance of History ........0....0.cccecccccececeesceeeeceaeceaeceaeceaeceaeceaeeeeeeeeeseaeseaeeeaeeeaeesaaeeaaes 3
Part Two: History and Bible Chronology ..................:cccccccessesseceseceeeceseceseceseceeeeeeeeeeneeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 3
Part Three: The Elements of Chronology.................:ccccccceesceeseesseceseceaeceaeceseceaeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeaeeeaeesaeeeaaeeaaes 3
Part Four: Chronology in the Bible Record ................ccccccccceceseeeseceseceseceseceseeeeeeeeeeeeneseeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaee 9
SECTION ONE: HISTORY AND BIBLE CHRONOLOGY ...000000.cccceccccccceeeceteceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneteas 40
CHAPTER ONE figs iit ii en kee hited ag Aviad awed tava daa Mada a Godda dam doth amis dae eae 41
ADAM, FATHER: OF ALL RACES 0. o:cccissecicsduise cea cidecadeouitesntdecastanvek caten cyanate setdeheng scuiatar ce eieesndetadaeeg 41
Introd uCti OM ies. i: cies Seboevcis cng fotis deasd ek ade aca teod ade oeliastv dd wlim Wan aa deen sislich anesv ce adetades 41
The. Beginning of Time :is.2.32.s::cne i hebseedenchd ae eee an aA iat hk Me eke ap eee 41
Chart of the Chronology of the Early Patriarch .0...0...0....0cccceccccceeeceeeceeececeaeceeeceaeeeaeceeeeeeeneeeseneeses 41
History: Of Che W 6K 205 sees ccc ca deeseiesedeed sssise A caseeed cgdtepntiastvdl alin een tee a dadetsislech nies v ceeded ade 43
Adam Created by God in year 1 0.........ccecceeccceecceseceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeecaaecaaeceaeceaecaeceseeeseeeeneseaeeeaeeeaeeenaeeaaes 43
Whe Paradise in Eed My. 3:2 cice.. 05 sss veces eeastens suas evn inne saoa eda s one danse ya cvs cen ht hotadeaa tee eh de salina dhagnes beaded eddy ands 44
God’s First Judgment On Earth ow... cee cese cess ceseeeeeeeseeseeeeeaeeeaeeeaeecaaecaaecsaecsaeeeaeseeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeas 45
The First 130 Years in World History ...0...........cccccccecccceseceeceseceseceeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeesaaecsaeeeaeeeeeeaeens 46
Chart of the Patriarchs' Longevity... ecescsseesceeeceseeseeeecesecaeeeeeeaecnaeeaeeaeenaecaeeeeeeaecaeeeeeeaeenaeeaees 47
Adam ’s: Funeral tni:93 0A. Meco ccacds secs can sh asasis ccenesaedng owed auteead dando dunciuet the jetanandsseebiauasnandeacdesrvau deb evedsaee 48
Chart of the Years Adam Knew his Descendant ..00.......... cc cecesesceeeeeececeeeeeeeeeaeeaeeeeeeaeeaeeeeeeaeenaeeates 48
Enoch. Walked ‘With God jissiece.ccsscectscccecascetuseed teh cekccupee halichvas taaueee tens canes uisovs tu dhevencsenti snl edhdevaedevkeveasava 49
Enoch’s Way Home to Heaven in 987 A.M. uuu... cece ceseceseceseceneceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseaeeeaeeeaeesaaecaaessaeeeaeeeaeens 50
Chart of the Age of First Patriarchs at Enoch’s Translation in 987 A.M.......... ce ceeceeeeeeeeereeeneeees 50
120 Years of Judgment for Antediluvians in 1536 A.M. 00.0.0... cceccecceseceseceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeeeeaaeeaaee 51
Methuselah Dies in the Year of the Flood in 1656 A.M. oo... cece ecceseeeeeeeeesecneeeeeesecaeeaeeeeeeaeeaeteeeaee 52
The Worldwide Flood in 1656 A.M. ..0......cccccccceccceeeceescecececeseceaeceseceaeeeeeeseeeeeneeeaeeeaeeeaaesaaecsaeeeaeeeaeeeaeens 53
Baby Arphaxad Born inside Noah’s Ark in 1656 A.M. ooo... ee ceeceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeesaaecnaessaeseaeeeaeens 53
The Tower of Babel s...ciiion. ccs... cqeceesacilectascaciiseacibin sebstedencnaicuntascncivneasaddvuabedatevsackissvategnivonnealuvsabsaukenvbenss 54
Chart of the Number of Years that Noah Knew his Ancestors............ccccceeceeseeseeeeeeeeeneeeeeeeeneeeaees 54
Chart of the Number of Years that Noah Knew his Descendants ....0..0.....cceeceseeceeseereeeeeeneeneeeeees 55
Noah’s Funeral im 2006 A.M ss. icgecus sigectacencteses Sida sab cae ees ehaethccaedetea ellie pa lidede an eee tensive atee oben aad 56
28
First Hand Knowledge of God ...0...........cccccccecsceesceeeceececececeaeceaeceaeceaeceeeeeeneseneeeaeeeaeeeaeesaaecsaeeeaeeeaeeeaeees 57
Chart of the Number of Years that Abraham Knew his Ancestors ................ccccccccscessssssesseseeeeeesees 57
Chart of the Age of Abraham’s Ancestors when Abraham Emigrated from Haran to Canaan...58
Abraham Migrates Towards Hebron in 2021 A.M........eccecccccececeeseeceeeceseceaeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 59
Abraham’s Prophecy of the Nation of Israel in 2021 A.M. .0......c ccc cece ceseceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeesaneeaaes 60
How God Protected the Prophecies .................:cccccccsceceseeeseceseceseeeseceseeeseeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeeeaeesaaeeaeceaeeeaeeeaeees 60
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in 2045 A.M... ec eececeesceeeceeeeeeeeesecaeeeeeeaeceaeeaeeeeeeaeeaeeeeeeaes 61
Abraham’s Funeral in Ephron in the year 2121 A.M... cesecsseceneceneceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeesaeeeaaeeaaes 62
CHAPTER E WO) ied icici teed Bhi cincstes otc totdan lelede sas ev Rc daae tn ficcod aan tecat vaseeee aaavlea ducientabestaasaettiees 64
EGYPT: AN EXODUS TO FREEDOM 000... ccececcecceeccesetaeeeeceaecaeeeeeeaecnaeeaeeeeesaecaeeeeesaecaeseneeaeenaeeates 64
Shem Dies at Age 600 in the Year 2156 A.M. ........cccccecccecceeeeceeeeeeeeeaceeaeecaaecaaeesaeceaeeeaeeeaeeeeeeseeeseneeaas 64
Chart of the Number of Years that Jacob Knew his Ancestors.............ccccceeceesesseeeeeseeneeeeeeeeneeeaees 64
The Semitic Route ic.5: cic. citsicetcdece seach lec den cacti sea ible ebecedonbanidantas cacWioea end susebsdcdiunacidevsategsWonnedldasebsdelentactes 64
Israel Settles Down in Egypt in 2236 A.M. .0....cccceccccccececeeceseeeseceeeeeseeeeeeeeeeceaeeeaeeeaaesaaecaeeeaeeeaeenaeees 65
Exponential Hebrew Population Growth 000.0... ececceseecessececeeseeeeceaecaeeeeeeaecaeeeaeeaeenaeeaeeeeeeaeeaeeeneaes 66
The Prophet Moses Born in 2586 A.M... ee ceccesecesecnceseeesececeeseeeeceaecaeeeeeeaecaeeeaesaeenaeeaeeeeeaeeaeeeneease 66
Moses Becomes a Fugitive im 2626 A.M. .........ccccccccceescecsseceseceseceseeeeeeeseeeeeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeesaaecsaeeeaeeeaeeeaeees 67
Moses’ Disappointment by Prophecy’s Postponement ...........0.... ee eeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeaeseaeseeeeaeees 68
Israel’s 430 Years Sojourn in Egypt... ccs eesecsecseeceseceaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseaeeeaeeeaeesaaecsaessaeeeaeeeaeees 71
The Exodus: God’s Liberation of Israel from Egypt in 2666 A.M. ..00..... ees eeceesseesecsseceeeeneeeaeens 72
God’s Retribution at: Midmight 50.05.55 ccic cei siee case etic cusceadecusdecaneastosdacssscadasiecbadocsabcetucsdeesdacdessesesteest tests 73
God Executes Judgment on All the Egyptian gods ...0..........ccccccecceesceeeceeececeaeceaeceaeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeneteneeees 74
CHAPTER THREE 1. iii siccscssiiseves cineca igloo hana sete a dando lae evel Goren else dee eda law 76
A. SANCTUARY. IN THE. DESERT }.5. 464000 ea ba ae a a eis an we 76
Sinai’s Shaking Prefigures the Heavenly Sanctuary. .............. ccc cccesseesessecsceceeeceaeeeaeeeaeeeseeeeeeeeneeeas 76
The Code of God’s Judgment .0..... ce ceeceseceseceseceseceseeeeeeseeeseaeseaeeeaeecaaecsaecaeceaeseaeeeaeseeeeeeeaseneeeas 77
Idolatry in the Foothills of Mount Sinai in 2666 A.M... ec eeccceceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeacesaaecsaeceaeeeaeeeaeens 79
The Day of Atonement Prefigured the Judgment Day ...........0.....cccccccceceeeeeeneeeeeeeeeaeeaeeeaeeeeeeaeees 79
The Heavenly Sanctuary Shown to MOSS ...........:ccccccccssseceseceeceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseaeeeaeeeaaecaaecaeeeaeeeaeeeaeees 80
The Day when Moses Smote the Rock ..0.........::cccccscessseeseceseceseceseeeseeeeeeeeeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeesaaecaeeeaeenaeeeaeees 81
Moses” Last: Message:in 2706 AsMi vice ccev.cccunserssoccectetenecoentdencaechuscnseetesdedatecsteedhseuihaadinsersestensedeleaydiects 82
Moses*:Burtal im: 2706 Asoc cc ccied ace cas vaeetencdiceuas dos onteds ante cha chdonteae dues sis setenheds auth cousedeevacduva saves vusdeaen 83
CHAPTER POURS cncetde teak eet w het heen eee eet a eae eases ae ae weeded eee eee 84
ISRAEL: GOVERNANCE OF THE JUDGES 0.00.0... .cccccccccecccecescesececeseeeeeceaecaeseeceaeeaeeeeeeaesaeeeeesaeenaeeaees 84
Chart of the Chronology of the Judges’ Period .................ccccccecceeeceeeceeececcecaecaeceaeeeaeeeaeeeeeeseneeeneeaes 84
Joshua? Israel’s First. JUV cca cscc idee ccsecieesticeds coseissesidesesyctdesciesiacedecssnascesicessseesansdicesiaesiscobeiieesadeets 84
The Gilgal Passover in 2707 A.M. o0.....ccccceccceeceenceesceececeaeceaeceaecaeceaeeeeeseeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeesaaecsaeseaeeeaeeeaeees 85
Joshua’s Last Speech in Shechem................:cccccssscssssesecscesoeesseessseeseessnessnessscseecsseesenssseaseeeeseeesseeseeeees 85
Samuel: Israel’s ast. Judge oi iiiciccccicceviccitcckestcessiecsteatscetdacsigestnenssosicassecaseiasesidocsioestusenceadacsescededisessdeats 86
Israel Requests to Have a King in 3116 A.M... cece cececesecee cee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeesaaecsaeeeaeeeaeeeaeees 86
Thunderstorm: a Sign of God’s Displeasure oo... cece cee ceseceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeesaaesaessaeeeaeenaeees 87
David: A King After God’s Own Heart .0...... ec eececccssecsseceseceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeneseaeeeaeeeaeesaaecaaecsaeenaeeeaeens 88
Samuel Ends Period of the Judges in 3156 A.M....0......ccccccccceeceeeneeeeceececaaecaecaeceaeeeaeeeaeeeeeeeeeeteneeaas 89
CHA PVER: BDV Bi coceseisde casket cic hedetascecd eee teduaidat degtvecteuin nec sdinacen suse csdeae iatatens tucccehanadt sh etaveemaateees 90
THE ANCIENT WORLD FROM 1400 to 586 B.C. oo... ceeceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeesaeeeaeesaaecsaeenaeeeaeeeaeee 90
Urn trOGuiCti Onn si, scesivee ceed es cagetvarevsdedresnes vas ase esanse a tencdtstets deen venta becvenebuns eaten pondede aes ea bananas aeevelndetea eva 90
Egypt From the Amarna Age to the End of the Twentieth Dynasty (1400 B.C.-1085 B.C.) ......... 91
The Kingdom of Mitanni (1600 B.C.—1350 B.C.) ..0....c ccc cccccccssccssssecseeeecseeesaeessaeeceeeessaeessaeesenees 101
The Hittite Empire From 1400 B.C.-1200 B.C, oo... ceteceseceaeceeeceseceeeeeeeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeeenaeeaaes 102
The Rise and Growth of the Sea Peoples (1400 B.C.-1200 B.C.) .........c cc ccccccsscsesseceeeeessseeesseeeeenees 105
Israel Under the Judges (1350—1050 B.C.) ..........cccccssccssssecssecessscesaecseeeecseessaeeseseecseeessaeeessaeesenees 106
Egypt in Decline—Dynasties Twenty-one to Twenty-five (1085—663 B.C.) .........ceccesseeeeeeeeeeee 121
The Assyrian Empire (933—612 B.C.) .........ccccceccceesceeeeeececcecsaecsaeceaecaeceaeeeeeeeeeeseneseneseaeeeaeeeaeesaeeaaes 125
Phoenicia From the Earliest Times to Nebuchadnezzar U0 ooo... ee ceeeceenecnceeeeeeeeeaetaeeeeeeaeens 138
"The Syrian States cic. cseccsntseeivent caseciks haves acaee senda vel aged eda ghebvebidaue seh aad iv sau ane gaa dadevvine lneeuagenventeanebeass 139
The United Kingdom of Israel (1050-931 B.C.)..........cccccccccccsssesssscesssecseneecseeesaeeseaeecseeeessaeeessaeessnees 141
The Kingdom of Judah 931—609 B.C. and of Israel 931—722 B.C...0.....cccccccccsseceseeesseeeesseeeenees 146
Egypt in the Saite Period, Twenty-sixth Dynasty (663-525 B.C.) ..0.....cccceeceeceeeeeeeneeeeeeeeeneeeneeeaaes 160
The Neo-Babylonian Empire From 626 to 586 B.C. oo... ec ececeecceseeneeeeceseeeeeeeeaecsaeeaeeeeeaeeaeeeeeeaeeas 163
The Kingdom of Judah From 609 to 586 B.C... cecceccccceceseceseceseceaeceseeeeeceeeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeeseeeaeeaaes 165
CHAPTER SEX aissstecitsiecetieet eh aierincted eae en eule Glin eel eieec alas ethene lode ae utente: 170
THE HEBREW CALENDAR IN OLD TESTAMENT TIMES........00..0..0.cccccceccescceeeseeeeeeeeneeeeeeaeens 170
Origin of the Hebrew Calendar ..........0.....ccccccccceceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeecacecaaeceaeceaeceaeceaeceeeseeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 170
The Elements of the Hebrew Calendar .................cccccccccscessecececeseceseceaeceaeceseeeeeseeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 171
The Religious: Festivals s..:.0jiccssscessccete essence dundckscoes toes od entcdentestevcndondcuschvenavinbsunees atte sineuinedegedhveusteensiante’ 175
Year Reckonings: 2203 csdicuscstensi ate esl scdtee acts ese ee ats ena reas aaa eens 180
New Calendar Problems After the Exile .............0.cccccccccccescecseeceseceseceseceeeceseeeeeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 183
Archeology and the Postexilic Calendar ..........0.....cccceecceesceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeacecacecaaecaeceaeeeaeeeaeeeeeeseneseneeeas 188
Different From Later Rabbinical Calendar ................ccccceccceececeseceseceseceseeeseceeeeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 192
CHAPTER SEVEN 65 sic.csicsostieseck ai casvendstntieatacieseala tite fal igs wesn cde dead ete es banbda rau cad verse See etiaeeu aetneemeativoeass 194
BIBLE CHRONOLOGY FROM EXODUS TO EXILE...000..00ccccccecccecceeeceeeeeeeeseeeeeeeseaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 194
The Conquest of Cama ain ss cit.cise.caeceiesvi a tecsccckteas ohachaas cdactdoncd etvenn cantina vdeviansoceinsteed oa tiecacgiaid dlevtageemeeanes 194
The Period Of the Jud 26S ici cicie Bs scecsscsascesssastecvscsancesstdaatesh ev ovaesananave va ssivaedvagavash viasivsosiaeiceottyonceeetes 196
The United Hebrew Monarchy ..................ccccccccesceeceesceesceesceceaecsaecuaeceaecaeceseceaeeseeeseeeeeaeeeaeeseeeaeeaaes 201
Methods and Principles of Reckoming.................ccccceccececeeeceeseecseceaeceaeceaeceseeeeeeseeeeeneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 204
Relationships of Reigns in Divided Kingdom .................c.ccccccsceeseceseceeceseeeseceeeeeeeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 214
The Basis for the B.C. Dating of the Kimgs .........0.....ccceccccccssceceseceseceaeceseceseceseeeeeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 222
The B.C. Dating of the Hebrew Kings....0...0......ccceccccceesceeeeeececeeeceaeceaeceaeceseceeeeeeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 230
CHAPTER HYG TD secs oe ccecccsnteasngeh netsh ve eas ap und vd suse bing obacdoud sh oe tavanbontv besa de navinhestecvandeaventoaede shdetingenardetes 235
ISRAEE'S MONARCHY 3 cic. coesccahes exch bus vss tues vane tacevacedectcasktcncesae tune tacts distant tasuditea nrascloeiaandl eotaolteedes 235
King David’s Coronation in 3156 A.M... ececeeseescecseecsseceaeceaeceaeceaeceseeeeeeeeeseaeseaeseaeeeaeeeaaeeaas 235
David’s Acknowledgment of God’s Throne... eee cececssecsseceseceaeceseeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaaeenaes 235
King Solomon’s Coronation in 3196 A.M. oo... ecccsceesceescecscecsaeceaeceaeceaeceseeeeeseeeeeeneseaeseaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 239
Solomon Dedicates Temple in 3207 A.M. .0........cccecccecceeeceeeeceeeecceceaecsaecaeceaeceaeceeeseneeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 239
The Ark of God’s Testament Seen in His Temple... cece eececeseceseceneceseceeeeeeeeeeeeseaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 239
Solomon’s Spiritual Downfall 00.0... cece cee eseeeeceeeeeeeeecesecaeeeeeesecsaeeaeseeceaecaeeeeesaecaeeeeeeaeenaesaeeeeeeaeeas 240
Israel’s Monarchy in Jeopardy in 3236 A.M. oo... cece ceseesecsseceaeceaeceaeceseeeseeseeeeeneseaeseaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 241
Jeroboam Plunges Israel into Apostasy ...............ccceccceeceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeacecaaecaaecsaecaeeeaeeeaeeeeeeeeneeeeeeaas 242
Worldwide Apostasy Similar to that of Jeroboam................ccccecceseceseceeeceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 243
Shemaiah: the Man of God Confirms God’s Judgment... ec ceeceseceseceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeenaes 243
King Josiah in Prophecy 358 Years before his Birth ..........0...0. cc eccceccceeeceseceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeeeenaeeaaes 244
The Shocking Scenes in Samaria’s Siege in 3315 A.M. oo... eeeceseceneceneceeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 245
Amos Condemns the Symbol of their Star in 3406 A.M... ecccccecececececeeeeeeceeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 246
Assyria Threatens Israel in the Days of Isaiah in 3504 A.M... ccceccceceeeseceteceeeceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 246
Fifteen more Years for Hezekiah in 3504 A.M... ccceccccccceseceeceseceseceseceseceseeeeeeseneeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 247
Isaiah Prophesies From 3458 - 3519 A.M. .0.....ccceccecsceescecsceceaeceaeceaeceaeceaeceseceeeseeeseaeeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 248
31
Isaiah Prophesies About the Persian King Cyrus ............0.....ccccescceseceseceseseseeeeeeeeeeeeneeeaeesaeesaeeeaeeaaes 248
Isaiah Prophesies About the Savior of the World .................ccccccccceseceseceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeesaeeeaeeenaeeaaee 249
Prophecy of Josiah’s Reform Fulfilled in 3594 A.M ooo... ce cesceseceseceseceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeseaeeeaeeeaeeeaaeenaes 251
Israel’s Genuine National Reform in 3594 ALM... cecccceeceeesneeeeececeeeeecaeeeeaaeseeaeeeeeeeeaeensaeeeneees 251
The Man of God’s Tomb Honored in 3594 A.M. ......cceccceecceeeseeeeneeeeeeeceeeeeaaeeeeaaeceeeeeeaeeneaaeeneaeeees 252
The Grand Passover Of 3594 A.Mo......cccccceccceeseseseeeeeeeaeeeacecacecaaecaaecsaecaeceaeceseesaeeseeeseneeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 253
CHAPTER NINE iyosesscccccse Sided Sk see oa ceavis tnd Widaas de a csaepaaceeiies this tehtdnsede cevussavds dudes caiehtees dled do ecateves tee 254
BABYLON: GOD'S JUDGMENT ROD 0000... ccceesceescecsceeeaeceaecaecaeceaeeeaeeseeeseaeeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 254
Jeremiah’s Ministry since King Josiah’s 13th Year in 3589 A.M. oo... eee ceeeceeeceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 254
Jeremiah Risks his Life as he Prophesies.................c cc eccesssceeccesecseeeeeeeceaeeaeeeecaecaeeeeeeaeeaeeeaseaeenaeeates 255
Egypt’s Pharaoh Establishes Jehoiakim as King 00.0.0... cece cess ceneceneceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 255
First Babylonian Incursion in 3612 A.M. ou... ecccccececeeceesceesceceaeceaeceaeceaeceseceeeseeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 257
Jeremiah’s Prophecy of 70 Years for Jerusalem’s Desolation ...............0.ceccecceeceeeeeeneeeneeeneeeneeenaes 257
Prophecy Concerning the Temple Vessels ..............:..c::cccccseceseeceseceseeeseceseceseceeeeseeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 258
Jeremiah’s Letter to the First Captives in Babylon in 3612 A.M. oo... ee ee eeeeeeeeeereeeneeeneeeaaes 259
Second Babylonian Incursion in 3618 A.M. o.......ccccecccecceeeceencecceceaeceaecaeceaeceseeeeeeeeeeseaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 260
Jeremiah Reveals Jerusalem’s Doom to Zedekiab.............eccccccceseceeeeeeeeaeeeeaeeeeaeeceeeeesaeeeeaaeeeeeees 261
A Prophecy in Zedekiah’s 10 and Nebuchadnezzar’s 18" Year Reign............cscscccscssessesseeseeees 261
Third and Final Incursion of Jerusalem in 3630 A.M. .0....0....ccccceseceseceseceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 262
The 70 Years of Desolation Began in 3630 A.M. ........ccccccccccccssecsseceeceseceseceseceeeeseeeeeneeeaeeeaeeeaeeesaeeaaes 262
Ezekiel Confirms 2™ and 3" Babylonian Incursions...............:.sccssssesssessssessesesssesesssesessesesseesecses 263
How the Chronology was Preserved. ................:ccccccccceesceesceeceeaeceaecaeceaeceaeceseseeeeeeeeeeneseaeeeaeesaeeeaaeeaaes 265
The World Empires in Daniel’s Prophecy ................ccccccesceeseescecsceceneceneceseeeaeeeeeeeeeseaeseaeeeaeeenaeeaaes 265
Babylon’s Fall: the Writing on the Walk o.oo... eee csecsseceaeceseceaeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeneseaeseaeeeaeeeaaeenaes 266
Come Out of Babylon My People! ..............0.eccceecceecceeeeeeeeeeceeseecacecaaeceaeceaeceaeceeeseeeseeeseaeseaeesaeeeaeeaaes 267
In the Medo-Persian Empire. 3. sci. cea isk cceacineciv candace tanatest eioevea iano calacsvsaslestvsonesdaedieeenstonveates 267
Daniel in Office Until the First Year of Cyrus, in 3700 A.M. ...00....ecc ee eecceeceseeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeaeeaaes 268
CHAPTER: TEN cccceicccas ved veeet ee ieedss iceesete asta vag vast teditedaas le ovale cutaneous con tate ds deep heed an dng cael Saeed done 269
THE ANCIENT WORLD FROM 586 TO 400 B.C... cceeecnseeneeeeceseeaeeeeeeaecaeeeeeeaeeaeeaeeeeeeaeeas 269
Vintrod action yeissicccdes ns cceeena cd aGenn cde cag nevi lag ancdu cd oeacbladoodigplassanui la asatecasbaced even vdediaeadedeesaasdi Gonadal deatsenteeanss 269
The Neo-Babylonian Empire From 586 to 539 B.C. ou.....cccccccccceseceseceseceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 272
The: Empire:of the: Medes: 220-2 ccsig ase. cst even ciee ates chet eh a ieee id aati. aed eee tees te aede eee 276
The Persian Empire From Cyrus to Darius UD ooo... cece ececeeeeeeeeeeeeceaeeaeeeeeeaecnaeeaeeeeenaeeaeeeeeeaeeas 277
The Jews in: Exile i205. casi eesa cats venss te eciesiesed tne aed eo ah ena iad ast eas 289
The Restoration: of the: JOws sicc.ciscceccsieieccssseeseisceeeceuieceeteneivebveobasunessansvurauvaevvkeseusc¥eeoduasoscadshevensvantvennse 292
The Jews in Egypt During the 5th Century B.C. oc. ccccececeeecese cess eeseceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 303
CHAPTER ELEVEN ' sicsizcccis cet ecists oorccasee a beveanevaaes et evhans cduakten ot Gv abaecettan vleetan dtessanvedaetanenttan vlestan denies 308
PERSIAN KING CYRUS: GOD'S SHEPHERD ...00...0..cccccccccceeeseeeeseeseeeecaecaeeeeeesecaeeneesaeeeaeeaeeereeaeeas 308
King Cyrus in Isaiah’s: Prophecy :..icccicccscccicesdecetscciccecsscecsescedecesseddanssscosasccseacasesshdeateeed Sostdectiactensoass 308
Biography of Cyrus in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel .....0...0...0..0ccccceecceeceeceeeeeeeneeeeeeeneeesaes 309
Daniel Confirms Fulfillment of the Prophecy .............0...:cccccccccescceseceseceseeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeseeeaeeaaes 310
The Desolations of the Samctuary .................cccccccceesceeeceeeceeececeaeceaeceaeceaecaeceseceeeeeeeseeeeeaeeeaeesaeeeaaeeaaes 311
The Laying of the Temple’s Foundation Stone 0.0.0.0... ee cececesecseceeceseceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 312
Eo: Restore amd to: Bail ois. cecccn he cseetes ecascesk cance vicnss cede tanatvdh danavensidanevicsivasdeaataee sh ansisebeaaedd veonneonevdanes 314
King Cyrus Knew About the Importance of Chronology ..................:ccccccesceseseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeesaeeaaes 316
Artaxerxes: DOCK OG? sicccerlvececioteresteeslvenss Hevvenehasaeaniotecans ves vee ch sBetumn a teeta became vente batennbanoennaebetnt es 316
Nehemiah Travels to Jerusalem. ...............cccccccccceceeceeeseeeceececaeceaeceaeceaeceaeceseceeeseeeseaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 317
Artaxerxes Annuls His Own Decree ...............ccccceccsessceseeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeacecaaecaaecsaecsaeeeaeseaeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeaas 318
CHAPTER TWELVE ccsesccoctvcvtecteseeas tees aee cs Reset oasrtend beseatera reece hotuas ar teeate banat cin wens Raden eee ae tates 320
ISRAEL: OUT OF BABYLON ..0.00.....cccccccsssssscssesssessessecssesscsseceneanessecssessessessaesasesuesaecaeeateseesenseneseeseatens 320
Haggai Prophesies on Behalf of the Temple in 3745 A.M. ..........cccceccceeceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 320
God Commands the Rest of His People to Leave Babylon in 3745 A.M. ..........cceccceeeeceeseeeseeteeee 321
Prophecy of the Candlestick Prefigures 49 Years .............cccccccceccceseceseceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 321
Jubilee: a Symbol of Judgment... ec ceecceecceseceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeesaeeeacecaaecsaecsaeceaeeeaeeeeeeeeeseeeseeeeeas 322
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Nehemiah Against Corruption ..........0...0....:ccccecceeceeeeeeneeeneeeseeeeaes 323
Second Jewish Temple Finished in 3749 A.M. o00.....cccccccccceesceeseecececeaeceaeceaeceeeeeeeseneeeeeeeaeesaeeeaaeeaaes 324
CHAPTER: THIRTEEN? occ¢es tei si. sch ss eahe ceed cet eas lean elabata thd otaate Saidend va ha shat hei danta antag eerie belated 326
CHRONOLOGY OF THE EXILE AND RESTORATION ..0...0...ccccccccecesseescceeeseeeesesesaeeeseeaeeneeenenaes 326
Vint OG UGE OND sisi sg detec de conned haan dedan iaesi de paacagiesen chda dean sdeiansaned ip lenetben saa aed ue aavaotiadeddevaedhe naa Genlvaeeeaeee 326
Chronological Background of the Period Established .............0.....ccccccccescceseceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 327
Beginning of the Captivity Under Nebuchadnezzar .................0cccecccescceesceeeceeeeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaee 331
The Chronology of Jeremiah and Ezekiel ............0...0cccccccccsccssseceeeceseeeseceeeceeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 334
Captivity Ends in the Reign of Cyrts.............c.cccceeccecceeeeeeeceeecesacecaaeceaeceaeceaeceaeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 336
The Period of the Rebuilding of the Tempple................00. cc ccccccceeeeceseceseceseceseeeeeeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeeseeeaeeaae 340
The Chronology of Esther, in the Reign of Xerxes .............:cccccesceseceseceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 343
Dating the Journeys of Ezra and Nehemiah ..................ccccccccccsceceseceeceseceseceeeceeeeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeeeaeesaeeaaes 343
The Elephantine Papyri and the Jewish Calendar. ..............0..cccccccesceseceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeeeaeeesaeeaaes 346
Tables of Elephantine Jewish Calendar, 472/471 Through 400/399 B.C. .........cccccccccccssseesseeeenees 351
CHAPTER [FOURTEEN isciecsteciss ccscne vet oases ahd das hac baiea dutenan od oe hva abt tan elated iastved Gade caintae deglage deeonete 355
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS ...00...0...cccccccceeceeeeeteeeeeeeneeeaaes 355
Min tr OL UNC tH OM see seisees ose ciigs fe Sa aaa ss aan ava ais ds Lesa das ea dae ag es sas vee dadash ba da aeavod cadets aeaseesd dads be Macaeeesades 355
VS AAD ss st encdcs eects Atak tetsaav teins tented a et obit dian eaten dae etin dalah tensed GG ata dain arenes 355
JOREMIAN :, .52oe FR elece le eslecisdecvte oases RM edanvlen dant vcantutedesesvoeevedsavess aitsicsesianelveentontaaneetia vduseeesvisacevsesaveonteeeys 357
Be Zeke iso o5 gecet ck ecshcce tient cad legal aude evn cole daacode sexed bin poh ded su ecdentacnkudes sacecivdal cas Winnackdsstaavds@eeaeelieselsaeivennes 357
Diamnie i pcoscictecvascesuet icteovaasivstevakeireseas vie lve aa Raden saves ala deere ala Tahoe tans Gente ease ae stator tan eee 358
THOSC 2 sos icc be sienee sh sitcces cagave vo ents cv thaadancsh sonecets sansa va cesevestaneea dh cveceessandeva yh evaeeedvaaseeih ssateeslueaavees soatevevtides 358
SMOG Tassie ek aete ek eaS cect beatenasn ata nel veel can hdvesl coestnearen Ghia ahd aw bleak Capster ened cael as baa te theeaditas ed etalceeleadast 358
AMOS sees ccevciebevanevclae distossaa Ga ctestuananseha etna Setue aativ iva eo vuse alae Tech ateaanee ate dara ate area 359
COB aa ea ain se eek cane ncie Sone econ cent oh 8425 au neds vhs tue band due on ch eh naan on Sa gud tad edu ehadvan SesaVentoaheds shteatndehanbeee’ 360
aD OWMAD sc 2 sows c eden va cats ovsee teak vais ch loving a vaca abv cesal iva caeaen chev snes si ee tedoesandevhate udev inde cook abu caesivlevactactevnvareee ae 360
MHI CAD, foes ateteseateeivavcctevescbenreuteveren ce talea tach Rete tule ca aaea aes alent Ge aan salve easels Detvetealn ane ete 360
IN MPU 5s nceccctch esa svete ceased ean hen cata sat eaten uate vd date nbndod ankaue dh ceaideod onteee ante eisl ea ntadeshoeevansetueds seteeausReweiees 361
Habakkuk eciisecnccctsstescc tec eaectseevee ste aktectesel oui eat esersevtons adits seves teens di teeteeadh eased 361
Leppbaariial isc otsgiceegeheeeeal ative aaa dd eased eel ca avd a eee ee 361
PU RS ai 3.3555 ies as aa Res ea av od A vas Taneed foci onda she a ded aes ed Tao ae so dae eat hte 362
FC CWAN TAN G2. 5654 secs cases Sects hc ee gies ta UGA hats asta ede sw Saabs tbe ata Cant tv ea Sa tbat ead daa, Castes daca en eohetates 362
Mallvehaisoicscietictsacceea eleeel alive aad aed Ge eel ad eee ee 362
CHAPTER EIR TEEN». 525 ieaes issn ha todo ie Mea as Sashes tah does tees ses edie Matava eee tae es 363
THE ROLE OF ISRAEL IN OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY . 0000. ..cccccecceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeaeeaaes 363
Dn tPOGUCtI OM 5.355 5ietea chee cance cs Penieien hens eth acta tan esonk oan lees tarade dia deevea haat Ar avdacavaaslesb tones dashes ovens 363
Israel.as:God’s Chosen: People «iis, ceciis ss ccteseentideaidetested aia setenaaad hag etisie ade eee uiaalieecns aes 364
The Ideal: How the Plan Was to Operate ...............:ccccceececsceeeceeeseeeseeeaeceaeceaeceeeeeeeeseneeeaeeeaeeeeeeaeeaaee 365
Israel’s Failure to Carry Out God’s Pham ooo... cece cee csecseeceaeceaeceaeceseeeeeeeeeeseneseaeseaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 368
Whi Israel Failed oic.ccceciscciseisanscntancnevidesuncdecoeacededeuiagiassanudlasacatecaseaced evens sdedneadedeesaasdi Gonadal dentsenienanes 370
The Nature and Purpose of Conditional Prophecy ....................ccccescessceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeneeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 371
Spiritual Israel Replaces Literal Israel] ......... eee eee eccesecsceeeeesecceeeeeeceaecaeeeeeeaecaeeeeeeaeenaeeaeeeeeeaeeas 372
Conclusion: Principles of Interpretation 0.0.0.0... cece eseeeeeeeececeeeeeeecaeeaeeeeeeaecaeeeeeeaeenaeeaeeeeesaeeas 374
CHAPTER 'SIXTEEN iih.teciteatstteiaTh cect tier ead ae sae end eee eed aed ood 377
THE TIME PERIOD BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS .....0. ccc cceccceecceeeceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 377
Man Gr OG UNC th OU 2s sdeee cece eS aa tige a aae a sacs vcd casas oka Secreta ee pes dns vee dash bs dua uaa cues Gaudés sada hsoeeddeah de ebnabeeseacd 377
The Jews Under the Persians During the 4th Century .......0...0..ccccecccceceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 377
Rise of the Greeks and Macedonians .....0...........c:cccccecsceeseeeceeececaeceaeceaeceaeceseceseeeeneseaeeeaeeeaeeseeeaeeaaes 379
Alexander’s Successors and the Dissolution of His Kingdom... ccceeeceseeseceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 381
The Hellenestic Kin@doms 2. :s0..2.c0ie. ctsciescsccksene cdevhga cgexsaan sa suenscekteve vdeuianvaceinstued cv ieencebaiae dleviageedeeanets 382
Palestine Under Hellenistic Rule ........0......cccccccccececeeeceeceeeceeeaecaeceaeceaeceaeceseceeeeeeeseeeseaeeeaeeseeeaeeaaes 384
The Rise of Rome to Dominance. .........0...0.....cccccceceesceeceeecetececeaeceaeceaecaeceaeceseceaeeeeneseneeeaeeeaeeseeenaeeaaes 386
Antiochus Epiphanes and the Jews .............::ccccccesceseceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeesaeecaaecaaeceaecaeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeees 387
The Maccabean Struggle for Independence ...................ccccceccceseceseceseceseceseeeseeeeeeeneeeneeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 390
From Priest State to Kimgdom ....0...0...0...ccccccceccceceeeeceeeceeeceeaceceaeceaeceaeceaeceaeceeeeeaeeseeeseeeseaeesaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 392
Decline of the Hasmonaean Power .................c:ccccccesceesceesceeececsaeceaecuaeceaeceaeceseceeeeeeeeseneseaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 393
Rome to the End of the Republic oo... ccc esecneeseeeeececeeaeeeeceaecaeeeeeeaecaeeeeeeaesaaeeaeseeenaeeaeeeeeaeeas 394
The End of Hasmonaean Independencce...................:.ccccceceeseeececsecesecaeceaeceeeceeeeeeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 396
The-Reign: of Herod. the: Great coi. sviciiceci descaseieasenciatesuntees wertishevans enveensincaaten aes va edateen tact eeentbetiatetes 399
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN 05 .22ssccssccencesvceenseess ey und vig suse bing obacdoutch ct tavantontvdesadsnavdedestecvandesaventoasede shdeaingen anaes 402
THE: MESSIAH’S GENEALOGY iio si cites cess teed cans ccovac ose cavaeadca cose donk vaned svkesastrssuedes asaeloekaaneledonisoliveanes 402
Priest Zacharias Turned Mute by God im 4152 A.M. 0... cccccceccceeeceseceeceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeeeesaeeaaes 402
John the Baptist: a Nazarite from Birth .00..00...00. cece eee cceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeacecaaecaaeceaeceaeceaeeeaeeseeeeeeeeeneeaas 402
The Savior’s Conception in 4152 A.M. (4 B.C.) ooo eecccceeeeeeeeeeeaaeeeeeeeceeeeeeaaeeeeaaeseeeeeeaeeeeaaeeeeaeeees 403
Three Months Away from Home ..................ccccccccceeeceesceescecececeaeceaeceaeceaecaeceaeceeeeseeeseaeeeaeesaeeeeesaeeaaes 404
Birth of John the Baptist im 4152 ALM. ooo... cece cece ceeesceeeceeeecaeceaeceaeceaeeeseceeeseeeseeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 404
Dreams: One of God’s Means of Communication ......0...0... cc cecceseceseceseceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 405
Satan Could not Discern God’s Plas ..............cccceecceeseeeeeeeeeeeececececeaeceaeceaeceaeceaeceeeseeeseeeeeaeeeeesaeeaaes 406
Joseph Urged to Remain Married to Mary in 4152 A.M. ooo. eeeeeseeseeeecesecaeeeeeeaeeaeeeeeeaeenaeeaees 406
Birth of Jesus the Messiah in the Year 4153 A.M. (3 B.C.) ........ccccccccccscccesssececeeseeeceesaeeeessaeeeeesaaes 407
Wise Men’s Guidance Through a Dream ..0.......... ec eecceccesceessecsseceseceaeceaeceseeeeeeeeeeseeeseaeseaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 407
A Dream to Flee into Egypt.............ccccccccccccescceseceseeeseceseeeseeseeeeeeeeeaeeeacecaeecaaecsaecsaecaeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseneeaas 408
The Lord. Jesus? Gemealo ay’: iisic.ccces cessseasceag cesucensadedanesncesehavierasues cseendeteadecavecpacieaieaaiis cesdhteniaediaveias 410
The Inheritance of the Son of God 00.0.0... cccccceccccceceeneeececececaaeceaeceaeceaeceaeceseceseeseeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 413
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN icctecfstiiks ede hed eae aad eae dee den aed bec 416
JOHN THE BAPTIST’S: MISSION .. a cccsccvsesciveevscsdesps cde tacts eadlevivacstiensdaaada de aes devaaestieasthivenes 416
Two Cousin Priestsi.cc.cccscicsedicatccsecects tubs casaaneselsculaveliceuens ilu chvaia cue Lately sau castes beta cbveotuaseee dade em eatveedes 416
Jesus’ Priestly Ministry Begins in 4183 A.M. at Age 30 oo... cee ceecsecsaeceeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeens 417
Behold the Lamb Of God ise. cice.cacoiseceianke cesses bavnuehgecsavn dca aeke cant tual edhans otetnstedd oaths dacabarte cd @lageemeanees 418
All Eyes Focused on our Lord JeSus.........0......cccccescceseceseeeeeeeeeeeeceeeaeecacecacecaaecaaecsaecaeeeaeeeaeeeeeeeeneeeeeeaas 419
The Baptist: “I must Decrease that He may Increase” oo... ee eeceeeceseceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 421
Execution of John the Baptist in 4183 A.M. uo... ccc cccecececececeseceseceaeceaeceeeceseeeeeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaas 422
Jesus Preaches of Judgment Day in 4187 A.M.: “As the Days of Noah” ....0... cee eeeeeeeereeeeees 422
Jesus Preaches About the End of the World 0.0.0... ccceeceesecseeeeeeeececeeseeeeeaecaeeeeeeaesaeeeeseaeenaeeaees 422
The Messiah: A Blessing for All Nations ..0..........0.ccceccccceesceeeeeceeeceaeeeaeceaeceseceeeeeeeeseaeeeaeesaeesaeeeaeeaaes 423
God’s Children of the Promise .0...........0.ccccceccceceeeeeeeeeeeaceceeeeecaeeeeaaeceeaeecnaeeeeaaeeeeaaeseeeeeaeeeeaaeeeeaeeee 423
CHAPTER. NINETEEN isss.accdesiccetienschfeetancecdeeencilia sok caotiooa chdentannacdes eanedcnsehnetvnaacbdasassecditcacdlessatedeidonaes 425
FULFILMENT OF DANITEL’S PROPHECY ..00......cccccccccccccececseeceseceaeceseceaeceseeeeeeseneseeeeeaeesaeesaeeeaeeaaes 425
2300 Years Until Judgment... ee ee cece cceeeeceeeeeeaeeeacecaaecaaecsaeceaecaeceaeeeseeeaeeseeeseneseaeeeaeeseeeaeeaaes 425
End of 70 Years Jerusalem Desolation Landmark for 2300 Year Prophecy........0..0....eeeeeeee 425
The 2300 Years Prophecy Reaches Year 6000 A.M..u.......ccccccecscceseceseceeceeeceeeeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeeeaeeenaeeaaes 426
Isaiah’s Prophecy of Jesus’ Birth Fulfilled in 4153 A.M. (3 B.C.)..... eee eeceeeeeeeeeeeneeeneeeneeenaes 427
Daniel’s Prophecy of Messiah Prince Fulfilled in 4183 A.M. (27 A.D.) o....eeeeceeeeseeseeeneeeneeeaees 427
What was the Year 456. B.C2? access cicceccccanceek este seu ccausseaaienrenedauses ane uvtes caauedenbacevvabeuaseusadenivenseanieoenes 428
Prophecy of the Lord Jesus’s Sacrifice Fulfilled in 4187 A.M. (31 A.D.) ..0... cc ceeeeeeeeesteeeeseeeeeeees 429
Gospel to Gentiles Year 4190 A.M. (34 A.D.) .....ceecceccceecceecceesceececaecaeceaeceaeceaeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 429
CHAPTER: TWENTY aiciccessncsicesescenevendssheiescuanee dav vel ceaebedigdereeoedoupi shaban sas eaves dadevvaaelavev ddeneeneanteoees 433
BATTLES AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ..00...00cccccccecceeecceseceeeceeeeeeeeseeeseeeseaeeeaeeseeeaeeaaes 433
Judeo-Christian ROOtS2.ci320.5.066sscererivteCeatd ak alin oat d oleh adie ea daas eats cacti aust dastiayeeaa aeons 433
The Rock Upon Which the Church Stands ..00........0..ccecccccccessecseceseeeseceaeceeeeeeeseeeeeeeseaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 434
The Mystery of Iniquity Unmasked ...0.......0.....ccccccceccceesceeeceeeecaeceaecaeceaeceseceeeseneseneeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 435
The Medieval: Church ‘State 3. 22.5.5.5.05..ssccveacsuag ewsaseecuenasececdnntontwons cans cert talaviace decee hse dieas (ana cdedh Seonetedasenty’ 436
Jewish Heritage Upholds Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone ..................:cccccccssccessseceececsseeessseessseeesees 437
Heinous Crimes Against Humanity ........0..... ccc cccccceceeesceeececaecaecaeceaeceaeceeeeeeeeeeeseaeeeaeeeaeeseeeaeeaaes 438
Heresies of ai New. Empire: ce.:.05. 3.5.05. iisesvenesuce esses cu stededeconnuentvionn cass cen atseindedeceadhse tees asa cde dh tesnttedadentys 439
A Pretense to Umfallibility:...cccc.ccccsccs ees cscoteendcgncavenavanscuneds case niochinedeqeshvedstsohacandsentd thectdneduneduvasaconesaetes 440
Impious Tradition Supplants Jesus as Savior 0.0... cece eceeeseeeeceeceeeecesecaeeeeeesecsaeeaeeeeeaeeaeeeeeeaeeas 441
Battle Against the Heavenly Sanctuary ..............:ccccccccccccceesceeeseceseceaeceaeceaeceseceeeeeneeeeeeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 442
On the:Seat of the Dragon iss. cssccsntisivnticenceeka cite sancgeuesek te cheeks ote ve la aetu races vee senscVeaotuabovsnedieveneentvonass 444
The Mystery of Iniquity Exerts Power for 1260 Years............0...cccccceccceeceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeesaeetaeeaaes 444
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE 20 iscscsecasev et os buwci uns des hah ac dutsoas Aavtaions cette wlextavaeteinseved aad catnite slewtage muanays 446
WHO TRAMPLED UPON GOD’S CHRONOLOGY .000...cceccccccceccceseceeceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeseneseaeeeaeesaeeeaaeeaaes 446
The Calendar in the Time of Noali..............cccccccccceeeeeeceeececeaeceaecaeceaeceaeceseceeeseeeseaeeeaeeeaeeseeeaeeaaes 446
The: Year Has: Twelve: Months ir: eciccistec sass cchscisstecteseccunttan diecasdceetntee slewtaas caeanaseeien Wiashectatte stasis teuhiees 447
A Time fora Yar ..oslcislevh le eductasioncechsiasecvsesivsesved tae vi tsacdeasau lve ent on Weaneetes vans eves vtaacevaesuseontaaees 448
A Day for a Year: 1260 Years of the Dark Ages 0.0.0.0... cccccccceceeeeceeececceceaecaeceaeeeaeeeaeeeeeeeeneteneeees 449
3:4 Days Stand. for 1260 Year: eves cic iiesis deveascisazexslodesesceesivnstechevens enters vaca seen aes viedateen aes eutnbetiaaete 450
Time, Times and Half a Time is 1260 Years................cccccccccccssccsssscesssecseseecsneessaeeseseecsseeessaeesssaeesenees 450
42 Months Equivalent to 1260 Years..............cccccceccececeesceeececeeecaeceaeceaeceaeceseceaeeeeeeseaeeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 451
The Prophetic Days Taken After True Biblical Calendar .........0...0...0cccceccceeseeceeeeeeeeeeaeeeteeeteeeaaes 451
1260 Years of Medieval Darkness................ccccccceeeceeeceeececeseceseceaeceeeceseeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeesaaesaaecsaeenaeeeaeeeaeee 453
The Word of God Banned for 1260 years .............:ccccecceecceseceeeeceseceseceaeceaeceseceeeeeeeeseneseaeeeaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 453
The Inquisition and Galileo Galiled ....0.......00 ccc ccc ccceeeceeececececaeceaecaeceaeceeeceseeseeeseneeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeesaes 453
Poin USS i. 2 2 aches eo teac detains cae sdch eases ead gate bes ot ante duceastansode Reine atelen snureds biavastecustesedhetudet needs 454
The Martyr Jerome) isc osicstscevec etek acktcscesec tank tvcad cdevscodons sacatescvscedurbaue ca seovecedecssaseles oyiaetevacasse vtec aes 455
John Wycliffe -...: cece heel aoe alan avs adda hie dade cane elidel ee eae 455
Waillicim: Tyndall es acs ccs oees ees os cia eased os Uhc dace eh sho sas be laos toes asa te La ao beaten deci ktbet tes 455
Who Changed the Reading of World Chronology? ...............c:ccccccescceseceeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeneeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 456
Medieval Chronology: isicsnicciciccsccsecets chee vaccccuesendaetives cegesbebagvervenutuen seh aebuvcau caaeedendalevveneluseucagenivenseanteuenes 457
What was the Purpose in Changing God’s Chronology? ...............:ccecccessceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeseeeaeeaaes 457
The Truth About the Passover and Easter .............0.cccccccccssceesseceeceseceseceseceseceeeseneeeneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 458
The Shortening of the Calendar in 1582 0.0.0.0... ceccecccccececeeeeeceeeceseceaeceaeceseceeeeseeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 459
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO) iississcscesisnevedladencsvcesvachdadssuceniaaoased la sensducnseacededbaacentvnaaeddeseasduceuaadedsdenasentenatse 461
CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGMENT: 1844 AND BEYOND 1... oceccecceeceeeeeeeeteeeteaeeeaeeteeeaaes 461
Chart of the World Chronology until Judgment Time. .........00..00 cece cee ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeneeeaaes 461
God’s Heavenly Sanctuary Judgment ...00..... eee ee eee ee eeeeeeeecaeecaaecsaeceaeceaeceaeeceeeeeeeeeeseaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 464
Daniel’s Vision Reaches Time of the End in Year 6000 A.M. (1844 A.D.) 0... eeeeeeeeeereeeeeees 466
The Church’s Great Disappointment in the Year 6000 A.M. oe ee ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeaaes 467
37
The Parable of the Ten Virgins and the Talent ............0...ccccccecceseceseceseceseeeeeeeeeeeeneeeaeesaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 469
The Earth is Not the Sanctuary of Daniel 8214 000.0... cece ceccceseceeceeeceseceeeseneseeeeeneesaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 470
Explaining the Disappointment ..0.......0...0.. ccc cece ceceeeeeeececececeaeceaeceaeceaecaecaeceeeeeeneeeneeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaeeaaes 471
The. Midnight ry Vision jos: css si sceveyscadeasccic coda oinczersaiacespesdnsvaceddarsdncuavyaacves iaieisvsduhsseeddedsdectbnarevsetie 472
A -Mistaké-in the Chart: sc:.stscis:.ceecceetexciens cotstanstechaneetetievd aiaca ceetiaeolealan emia abies elaine lealant deacons 473
The Significance of the Date 456 B.C. o.......ccecccccccccececeeeceeeceesaeceaecaeceaeceaeceseeeeeeeeeeseneeeaeeeaeeeaeeenaeeaaes 474
A 6179 Year Old Conspiracy Against God ..0...0....cecceecceccceeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeacecacecaaeceaecaeeeaeseaeeeeeeseneteneeaas 475
SECTION TWO: HISTORY, SCIENCE AND THE ORIGIN OF LIBE ...00...00ccecceccesseeeteesteteees 478
CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE i. c5sfciscecescsuscesscuscevenesascoscasase ds aenceaiaiaecstesisecdveavine st avsissoriasalceentvoncteates 479
THE. ORIGIN OF LUBE oieiccibsisal cacti viechlasssackeiisesceblasoksgeh seesidenteantedusancedivdebcdesianacdsssaasbccbscadedivsntedeivenase 479
In trOGuicti On sss ee.ve. gi ctescnosiverevekeveseeseislveeci Ratan aaaeneda ence nive hecane Gents eeaseae astateen tan ues 479
The Evidence: Scale: Fallacy e.2sicie2iisccekecsccd casees vicnsecesstanavech danevenradane vs ceivae dees raves sinsicebeagadl ce onneonevdenes 481
Mutations: Are they Degenerative or Regenerative? ...............ccccecceseceseceseceeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 483
Genetic Entropy: i.v:.2.secerdertcietanecesiet ca desea elves onion aaa eae a tater eee 486
Paleoanthropolo gy isch. cccccliccsankcncceecsaaiteush ep eadteds atte sanded onkadedh ceaideodontebe nth bial odantadesh obeivendedheds saoeeansedakttes 487
COTO EL CS sas Sees deb cecal edch alc en cs oli Gosh ab dams ava san cease Seco ee ev nena de a saga be dee ess eae seta leet 492
CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR 4 scisocsevise ch desea ieiveacivteneteiet hates gv ra evan de dateenteln eee est 500
RADIOMETRIC. DATING vec cnccisesceccececisesatessaddcis cosh boetodentsen sash tadardentodacatebaudaderkedeaasesibentaaeds sateatndehardeees 500
Vint OCU CEA O10 sie. s occas sah vo vc evans od oh vasa osc dead sacl naires ce deeded eva due deed dptandac abs dalaeiiaedeenta dee 500
An overview of Radiometric Dating 0.0.0... ec eseeecesecseeeeeesecaeeeeeeseceaeeaeeseenaesaeeeeeeaecaeeeeseaeenaeeaees 501
The Age:of thé Earth :33)..0450 Mas ie iets ict nin ost ee bn ae oats ahs 502
Brand New Rocks Give Old “Ages” ...0.........cecccecseeseeseeescecseecscecsaeceaecsaeceaeceseseeseeeeeeneseaeseaeeeaeeeaaeenaes 506
“Young”: Kossils:in- Old’? Mud iscsi ieee te ieneneketececeeuead ins ee thd ens iaa theres evened ib chad lee aesiea eaten 507
CHAPTER TWENTY-BIV E ics cies oils Hie igs ike disestigead ethavees toes estate biausisd Mala ated Gntaen ates 509
DINOSAURS 3 os. cfhtitee Aisne ai ts ied Asda al ee et Cada ve ea ee Gad i ae 509
Introduction sey. 63 sfelesheti tases es Poeveasded cashed canes ales aslo aie eine avd naiele ds andes aeons iaveates 509
When Did Dinosaurs Live? iici::csssicccisesecccsee son chssissacdede siasiachasbanvenstuckdevenacaedansadeceessaedce sanded dentsentageals 509
LV Ppes:Of Din OSAUrs ose ei scec neces es ieed ess cp eoe vee tieaa aes on va desided ede deeosliuae wotiees var ache nde da eea dade wien and cde dh Se itbed eae ntie 509
Dinosaurs and: the Bible sisi. fseveecdet iad scetasesevh calec ss taestvd wade cde raandi es aia easiedh atbacsecaaedighensvoniveates 510
Behemoth in the Bible ..........0.....cccceccceccceseceseeeeeeeeeeeeseeeaeeeacecaaecaaecsaeceaeceaecaeceeeceaeeseeeseneseaeeeaeeeeeeaeeaaes 510
Leviathan int the Bille ici c.ccce.cece tas sococuveeaveae guns ounce ae cig ededevostneh av etevans ceard vathviacesseea vase vieen gas cee sate aiebedaaents 510
Humans & Dinosaurs Together? 02.00.00... eccseecessecneeeeeeeececeeaeeeeceaecaeeeeceaecaeeeeeeaesaaeeaeeeeesaeeaeeeeaeeas 510
38
Soft Tissue Found in Dinosaurs ..0..............ccccccccccccccccccscscssscssssscsssesssesescseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseeeeeees 511
Dinosaurs:on:Noali’s: Ark? 22sec fetaceccetesestt vacsteaeees ier aii eeeadtetias divs ieee vitae ease 511
Were Dinosaurs Dragons? 2 :icc.cccicccscccieccscaeesekscetaveutacuntensiuchvesbaeunes \anstvrau cae tvsesees sbveoduasoseaedhivensvantveetes 512
Are Birds Evolved Dinosaurs? .........0....:ccccccscceseceseeeseeeseeeseeeeeeeeeeeeaeesaeesacecaaecaaecsaecaeeeaeseaeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeas 512
Dinosaur Movies, te ssce.cccseestictesiaeints Gas edaae clans eetin daw nctin eave ate aati dane eeanee 513
What Happened to the Dinosaurs? oo... ec eecesecneeeeeeeeceeeeseeeecaecaeeeeeaecaeeeeeeaecaaeeaeeeeenaeeaeeeeeeaeeas 513
Conclusion: Dinosaurs as “Missionary Lizards” .00......... eee esesssecsseceneceeceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeeeeaaes 513
CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX caiscciss zcccsits ts i nteibs eats nations davies eat tae vlan ccensive a Gad atnits dlewtage denne 514
NOAH'S FLOOD AND CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS 00.0.0 occceccccceeeeeeeeneeeeeeeneeesaeeaaes 514
What Is Plate Tectonics? ...:i..:ccccecciccieesiccaciesen cells sodsdeiieaneleeeteonneiusenciduvnohvdedvacncgdsevanseccUseacuddesntedeivennes 514
History of Plate: TectOmics: sce. cccciecces.iveeci deseas sivas ensiodesenices went shecens oeravecayacvaseea aes wiebateen tues wuttbetia eet 515
Slow-and-Gradual or Catastrophic? ......0...0..c.ccccceeccceseeeeeeeeeeacececeeaaeceaeceaeceaeceeeeeaeeseeeseaeeeaeesaeesaeeaaes 516
Is Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Biblical? 0.0.0.0... ccc cecccccsecececeeeceseceseceseceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeaeeeaeeeaaeeaaes 519
CONCIUSION: 5.002500 :50e A ccenactereuatetenes ete inen ea chaavet av eae bern eed deta onan eoraenae alaten ieee ent 519
CHAPTER "TWENTY -SEVEN | asccsccssceshisestesuodsviccusessncodardoutsncttavartohtvdesadhnavacheateduandesaventoaseagshdeatingehardetes 520
THE FLOOD, THE DARK AGES AND THE ROOTS OF EVOLUTION ......0.0.0cccecceeceeseeeeeeeeee 520
Introduction y3se5c.s2. ad esinaetverevatetaseeteelveetn dadaa ies acta eaten want Aeoas aerate eeaatenae detente 520
WUE FOO esse oecdick esa hence cae eaih canta chek eases bath ate nbn aod ana dlah Cea go dott Rogntevash od ntadean oe eageb cleat ete eons Dentiees 521
The Dark Ages and the Roots of Evolution ...0........0..cccecceccecececeeceseceseceeeeeseceeeeseneseeeeeaeeeaeesaeeeaeeaaes 522
EPILOGUE oe sicctiii eres hve ela sade dda cet edad devel ad de aed en 527
BIBLIOGRAPHY siccis assed eiecas esis ces hada ob etal desc toas cg Aas Pook toes ed kta akesattuea Sesh dvs dua adh kata dive ideas oak daa eae tas 529
39
SECTION ONE: HISTORY AND BIBLE
CHRONOLOGY
40
CHAPTER ONE
ADAM, FATHER OF ALL RACES
Introduction
From the beginning of time, God appointed a perfect chronology in order that His will may be done on
earth. Therefore, the Word of God, through genealogies, chronologies and prophecies, will guide you
through the different periods of earth and enlighten your mind with “the key of knowledge” (Luke 11:52).
God’s knowledge has been promised to all who diligently search for truth and look forward to attain
wisdom. Therefore, “...Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God...” (Luke 8:10).
History, Science and the Bible, is a thorough research that covers the chronology of the world since the
day when Adam was created until our present time. This book will confirm that God is in control of world
events and that nothing happens by chance. It will also explain God’s plan of salvation, which was
ordained from the foundation of the world and continues until the end of time.
The Beginning of Time
Created by the Word of God, planet earth was intended to reproduce God’s goodness in the lives of its
inhabitants. A great blessing was bestowed upon the first created beings who also inherited time as part of
their patrimony. An early Biblical chronology depicts how God established the patterns for the
measurements of time for our planet. On the fourth day of the Creation week, God appointed two
spherical lights through which we are able to record time and chronological history. In Scripture, the sun
and the moon are called, “the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night” (Genesis
1:16). In Genesis 1:14, the Bible reveals for the first time a scientific data pertaining to the cosmology of
this world and presents the role that the sun and the moon play in recording time in days, months, and
years:
“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let
them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years” (Genesis 1:14).
By God’s command, the celestial spheres in our solar system were put to motion. Our planet began a daily
rotation movement of 24 hours around the sun and a yearly translation movement of 360 days. Our
planet’s time began to tick away from God’s creation week. Nonetheless, in its origins, the earth did not
age because sin had not yet infected the world.
Chart of the Chronology of the Early Patriarchs
Al
= GOD - Adam Genesis 1:26-31 1
CREATED
1 ADAM 130 Seth Genesis 5:3 130
2" | SETH 105 Enos Genesis 5:6 235
cs ENOS 90 Cainan Genesis 5:9 325
4” CAINAN 70 Mahalaleel Genesis 5:12 395
i MAHALALEEL | 65 Jared Genesis 5:15 460
6" JARED 162 Enoch Genesis 5:18 622
7 ENOCH 65 Methuselah Genesis 5:21 687
8" | METHUSELAH | 187 Lamech Genesis 5:25 874
or LAMECH 182 Noah Genesis 5:28 1056
10” | NOAH 500 Shem Genesis 5:32 1556
11" | SHEM 100 Arphaxad Genesis 11:9,10 1656
The Flood
12” | ARPHAXAD 33 Salah Genesis 11:12 1691
13" | SALAH 30 Eber Genesis 11:14 1721
14" | EBER 34 Peleg Genesis 11:16 1755
15" | PELEG 30 Reu Genesis 11:18 1785
16" | REU 32 Serug Genesis 11:20 1817
17" | SERUG 30 Nahor Genesis 11:22 1847
18" | NAHOR 29 Terah Genesis 11:24 1876
19" | TERAH 70 Abraham Genesis 11:26 1946
20" | ABRAHAM 100 Isaac Genesis 21:5 2046
21" | ISAAC 60 Jacob Genesis 25:26 2106
42
The above chart is the origin of the world chronology. It begins in year 1 when God created Adam and
Eve. To number the years we add the age of the early patriarchs at the time when they procreated their
progeny. So, when Adam was 130 years old, Seth his son was born; such was the world year 130.
Consecutively, to the year 130 you add the age of Seth when he was 105 years old and it will give you the
world year 235, when Adam’s grandson Enos was born, and so on.
130 + Adam’s age corresponds to the year when Seth was born
105 Seth’s age when he begot Enos
= 235 Year when Enos was born
History of the Week
The Sun and the Moon are the spheres that measure time and so, we have days, months and years. But
you may ask: Where does the weekly cycle of seven days come from? It is easy to think of time in terms
of seconds, minutes, hours and days. Such measurements of time follow natural physical laws that God
established in the universe, in the Milky Way, and in particular, in our own solar system. But the celestial
spheres are not altogether autonomous, their physical laws are also subjected to the control of God. Of our
Creator it is said: “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...” (Isaiah 40:22).
Unlike days, months and years, the weekly cycle is not measured by celestial spheres; it was and still is
established by the direct word of God. It would have seemed appropriate that God had established another
form of sphere such as another moon to mark the beginning and the end of a week. But God chose to
establish the weekly cycle totally different from the cycles of spheres with their physical laws. By the
command of God, the seven-day cycle was established (Genesis 2:2).
Adam and Eve were created with the need to worship the Creator. They were assigned common time for
them to work and holy time for them to worship God. The Word of God explains:
“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God
ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had
made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his
work which God created and made” (Genesis 2:1-3).
The first Sabbath day began at the end of the first week in the chronology of this world. Adam and Eve
had just come fresh from the hands of the Creator. They learned that earth, sun and moon determine when
common time begins and ends, but God determines when the holy Sabbath begins. Thus, humans, aided
by the Holy Scriptures can discern the holy from the common. Then by their own free will, they can
decide to acknowledge the holiness invested in the seventh day Sabbath.
Adam Created by God in year 1
Adam and Eve believed by faith that God had created this world in seven literal days. By faith, they
acknowledged that God called into existence all things by His Word, and more importantly, humanity.
43
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he
them” (Genesis 1:27).
The Lord God, who had ordained eternal salvation for human kind, preserved in Genesis all the
generations of Adam (Genesis 5:1). All races: Caucasian, European, African, Asian, Indian,
Mediterranean, have a common ancestor: Adam. Adam was made in the image of God, and was created
perfect. But from the day when they brought on themselves the stain of sin, Adam’s progeny would be
procreated in Adam’s “own likeness, after his image” (Genesis 5:3). Had they chosen to remain loyal to
God’s command, they would have preserved that blood, pure and unstained. Nonetheless, God has made
all peoples of one blood. As the Scripture says: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to
dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their
habitation” (Acts 17:26).
The Paradise in Eden
In the eastern side of Eden (Genesis 2:8) was located the most wonderful garden that human beings could
ever imagine. It was a vibrant and colorful paradise with the richest of all biodiversities in flora and fauna
which God prepared for our first parents Adam and Eve. A majestic river sprang from Eden and ran
towards the east to water the garden (Genesis 2:10). The river divided into four heads: the Pison river
which waters the land of Havilah (Genesis 2:11), the Gihon river which waters the country of Ethiopia
(Genesis 2:13); and the Hidekel and Euphrates rivers (Genesis 2:14) which run toward the east of Assyria
that we will consider shortly.
In the center of the Garden was an awesome view of fragrant and embellishing trees. The Paradise also
grew all sorts of flowering and fruit trees. Right in the middle of the garden there were two outstanding
trees: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9). But still, the most
awesome experience was the presence of God that the Edenic couple enjoyed.
The Lord had commanded the first couple to eat of the fruit of every tree (Genesis 2:16), except for one
tree:
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:17).
Eve had fallen into temptation, she disobeyed the Word of God and she sinned. The serpent called Satan
(Revelation 12:9) deceived Eve (Genesis 3:1). When Adam saw Eve’s despondent condition, he also
tasted the forbidden fruit as Eve gave it to him. (Genesis 3:7).
Their senses were awakening to the sad awareness that they were naked.
They saw themselves “come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
In distress and agony, they tried to cover their nakedness with aprons made of fig leaves (Genesis 3:7),
but they could not remedy their spiritual condition by covering their bodies with leaves.
44
In His infinite love God called to Adam and Eve, but they were afraid and hid from the presence of the
Lord (Genesis 3:8-9). God wanted them to understand the severity of their sin and the calamity that they
had brought on themselves. Moreover, God intended them to repent and turn from their wicked way by
confessing their sin to God. Instead, they blamed God for their fallen condition. Adam challenged God
with the words: “The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
(Genesis 3:12).
Having called Adam and Eve to repentance, the Lord God revealed to them the mystery of the Kingdom
of God. He opened to their understanding the opportunity of forgiveness in the plan of redemption.
Therefore, as God passed judgment on the head of that old serpent, He also reassured Adam about His
plan of salvation: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15).
God provided an immediate rescue plan for humanity. From then on, we were bound to die. Nevertheless,
human beings had the option to die temporarily or eternally. What a wonderful provision! The Son of God
was Offered as a sacrifice to make atonement for humanity. On that very day, God performed a sacrifice
(Genesis 3:21), the first death in the entire universe, and with the skins, He covered the nakedness of
Adam and Eve’s bodies (Genesis 3:21). The slaughtering of that lamb was a token of the eternal sacrifice
of the Son of God. Adam and his progeny began to expect God’s redemption through God’s Son. But the
controversy that began in Heaven when the Cherub Lucifer rebelled against God (Isaiah 14:12-14;
Ezekiel 28:14-16), continued here on earth. That Cherub became what is today, Satan, and he was also
expecting the fulfillment of God’s prophecy. Satan wanted to thwart the plan of salvation by killing the
Son of God as soon as He would be born as a human.
God’s First Judgment on Earth
God’s first judgment on earth occurred in the center of the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve had fallen in
temptation and were destitute of the glory of God. Although they had sinned, our first parents did not
remain for ever in rebellion against God. They confessed their sin and through God’s offer of grace, they
received forgiveness. Nonetheless, they reaped what they sowed; their fate was to die, as “the wages of
sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Accordingly, God pronounced such a fateful judgment:
“In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken:
for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Genesis 3:19).
As their day of burial began to approach, Adam and Eve saw the dire effects of their sin in the decadence
of nature. They had forfeited the tree of life and with it the hold of immortality. A new chapter was open
before their lives. Now they were beholding disease, moral decadence, aging, suffering and death. Adam,
however, preached of the day of God’s deliverance. Adam had brought a terrible calamity as it is written:
“by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all
have sinned” (Romans 5:12). Therefore, Adam’s patrimony was sin and its consequence: the death
sentence on all humanity.
Adam recognized that through God’s grace, he would live again. The message was clear as it is today;
God’s providence had already made provisions for the day of redemption. He learned that the dust would
45
give up his dead body on the resurrection day, and like the prophet Isaiah proclaimed centuries later, he
clung to the glorious hope that he would be resurrected, just as his Lord would be:
“Thy dead men shall live; together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in
dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead” (Isaiah 26:19).
The First 130 Years in World History
Religious bigotry and hatred in matters concerning worship caused the world’s first murder. The ancient
record of God’s Word notes: “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the
ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat
thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering” (Genesis 4:3-4).
The two brothers came to worship God in completely different ways. Yet God had given to them a perfect
example of what worship the Lord delights to receive. In the Garden of Eden, God had sacrificed a lamb
representing the offering that He was bestowing to the fallen human race. That example should have been
followed by both brothers, but only the younger brother Abel brought an acceptable offering and God
accepted the worship of Abel but not the false worship of Cain (Genesis 4:5). In that way, the faith of two
brothers was put to the test and Cain failed. Envy, jealousy and hatred were harbored in Cain’s heart,
which led him to the brutal murder of faithful Abel (Genesis 4:8). From ancient times, the earth has been
a witness to the sad condition of an unending conflict between good and evil. Like Cain, worshipers in the
world are seeking to please God, following their own personal understanding of what is acceptable
worship to God; but to us, just like every person who has ever lived in this fallen world, God reveals His
will: “He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do
justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God” (Micah 6:8). Obedience to God, rather than
the dictates of one’s own mind, will always be an issue of true worship and of faith. The Scripture says:
“By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that
he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh” (Hebrews 11:4).
Satan instigated Cain to kill his brother Abel as he was enraged by the prophecy of Genesis 3:15, and by
killing Abel he thought to thwart its fulfillment. Satan also attempted to destroy the lineage of God’s
people through whom the promised Saviour would come. But the old serpent’s scheme was frustrated, as
God gave another faithful son to Adam and by his lineage the promise was fulfilled, as the Scripture says:
“And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” (1 John
4:14).
What a wonderful day it was, when in the 130" year, by God’s providence, Adam and Eve enjoyed the
blessings of their hundred and thirtieth wedding anniversary when they begot Seth (Genesis 5:3).
Although the Saviour was not yet to be sent into the world, that is, the seed of the promise, (Galatians
3:16) through Seth, the seed of the woman of Genesis 3:15; that is, the Redeemer would come.
Adam lived by faith and encouraged his progeny to cling to God’s promise. Therefore, Cain and Abel;
Adam’s two sons, learned that the pledge of redemption was offered at the Garden of Eden and that the
emblem of God’s assurance was the sacrificial lamb. But with all that knowledge Cain still clung to his
own will.
46
Chart of the Patriarchs' Longevity
1*— ADAM 1 930 930 years Genesis 1:1,27; 5:5
2™ _ SETH 130 1042 912 years Genesis 5:3,8
3" — ENOS 235 1140 905 years Genesis 5:6,11
4" — CAINAN 325 1235 910 years Genesis 5:9,14
5" - MAHALALEEL | 395 1290 895 years Genesis 5:12,17
6" — JARED 460 1422 962 years Genesis 5:15,20
7" — ENOCH 622 987 365 years Genesis 5:18,23
8""- METHUSELAH | 687 1656 969 years Genesis 5:21,27
THE FLOOD
9" — LAMECH 874 1651 777 years Genesis 5:25,31
10" — NOAH 1056 2006 950 years Genesis 5:28,9:29
11"°— SHEM 1556 2156 600 years Genesis 11:10,11
12" - ARPHAXAD 1656 2094 438 years Genesis 11:12,13
THE FLOOD
13"— SALAH 1691 2124 433 years Genesis 11:14,15
14"—EBER 1721 2185 464 years Genesis 11:16,17
15" — PELEG 1755 1994 239 years Genesis 11:18,19
16" — REU 1785 2024 239 years Genesis 11:20,21
17° — SERUG 1817 2047 230 years Genesis 11:22,23
18" — NAHOR 1847 1995 148 years Genesis 11:24,25
19" — TERAH 1876 2081 205 years Genesis 11:26,32
47
20" - ABRAHAM 1946 2121 175 years Genesis 25:7
21 —ISAAC 2046 2226 180 years Genesis 35:28
22™ — JACOB 2106 2253 147 years Genesis 47:28
Adam’s Funeral in 930 A.M.
What a solemn and yet dreadful day it was when Adam, the world’s first preacher, died in the
chronological year 930. Adam’s death shows that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Almost a
millennium had elapsed since God’s warning and judgment was first uttered that on the day that he eats of
the forbidden fruit he should certainly die. Accompanied by thousands of skeptics at his funeral, Adam’s
mortal remains were laid down in his tomb. A mighty man of God succumbed to the power of death.
Although Adam had waited for the promise of God’s redemption, he rested in his grave. The Redeemer
had not come. His mortal remains were to mingle with the dust of the earth until resurrection day. But
Adam professed the faith of Job. As it is written:
“For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though
after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” (Job 19:25-26).
At Adam’s funeral in 930, however, there were not only skeptics but also faithful believers in God; those
who eagerly awaited God’s promise of redemption. On that solemn day, there was the cream of God’s
seed; great elderly dignitaries of faith, such as his 800 year old son Seth, his 695 year old grandson Enos,
his 605 year old great-grand son Cainan, his 535 year old great-great grand son Mahalaleel, his 470 year
old great-great-great-grand son Jared, his 308 year old descendant Enoch, his 243 year old descendant
Methuselah and his 56 year old descendant Lamech.
Ninth generation patriarch Lamech, who was Noah’s father, was 56 years old in the year of Adam’s
funeral. At that time, the whole world had one common language. The population had not yet been
scattered abroad. Therefore, Lamech who was of the pure seed of God’s children, might have been
present at Adam’s funeral on the day that the world stood still to ponder about the reality that only God
has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16). Thus, the 56 year old young man Lamech contemplated with
admiration the mortal remains of a sleeping giant who still waits for the day when “this mortal must put
on immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:53).
Chart of the Years Adam Knew his Descendants
1“ ADAM 930 930 930 years
48
a SETH 800 930 - 130 800 years
an ENOS 695 930 - 235 695 years
4 CAINAN 605 930 - 325 605 years
ola MAHALALEEL _ | 535 930 - 395 535 years
6 JARED 470 930 - 460 470 years
ha ENOCH 308 930 - 622 308 years
ge METHUSELAH _ | 243 930 - 687 243 years
g® LAMECH 56 930 - 874 56 years
What an awesome privilege for Lamech to have known his ancestor Adam for the period of 56 years! So
much wisdom about God’s plan of salvation was imparted to him from the lips of the early patriarchs;
that is, from first hand recipients of God’s Word and specially from Adam. Lamech, in turn would
instruct his son Noah in the many centuries prior to the flood regarding God’s plan of salvation. He could
preach the Word of God that had been cited directly from the lips of Adam. He could proclaim, “Thus
says the Lord through our father Adam, whom I knew.”
Enoch Walked With God
Enoch, who was the seventh generation from Adam, was born in the 622" year. Therefore, he knew
Adam for the remaining 308 years of his life. The old man Adam did not learn about his descendant
Enoch’s translation to heaven because that event happened in the 987" year when Enoch was 365 years
old (Genesis 5:23,24), exactly 57 years after Adam’s death. But the first man learned from Enoch’s
fervent preaching about the second coming of Christ. (Jude 1:14).
Bear in mind that the patriarch Enoch had prophesied about the second coming of Christ and also
received the prophecy regarding the flood on or prior to the birth of his son Methuselah at age 65, that is,
in the year 687 when Methuselah was born.
Precisely, Enoch named his son Methuselah according to his knowledge of the flood.
Although Enoch did not hear the hammerings of the construction of the ark, he was translated to Heaven
669 years before the flood, yet he gave solemn messages to his family about God’s judgment.
49
Enoch’s Way Home to Heaven in 987 A.M.
Enoch was righteous man who walked this world leaving a legacy of faithfulness and holiness to the Lord.
The conduct of his holy life was a great encouragement to the life of Adam who had heard the voice of
his beloved descendant Enoch as he prophesied of God’s kingdom.
“And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and
daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with
God: and he was not; for God took him” (Genesis 5:22-24).
Heaven’s gates were now open, in the year 987 to receive Enoch, the man who in this world befriended
God. He was the first man of two who ever entered heaven without experiencing the pangs of death.
During his life, at the age of 308, he attended Adam’s funeral; he belonged to one of the eight generations
of faithful men who eye-witnessed Adam’s burial. And again, all those great dignitaries of God who
witnessed Adam’s death remained alive by the time of Enoch’s translation to heaven. His ancestor Seth
was 857 years old, his ancestor Enos was 752 years old, his great grandfather Cainan was 662 years old,
his grandfather Mahalaleel was 592 years old, his father Jared was 527 years old, his son Methuselah was
300 years old and his grandson Lamech was 113 years old.
Chart of the Age of First Patriarchs at Enoch’s Translation in 987 A.M.
2. SETH 987 — 130 857 years old
an ENOS 987 — 235 752 years old
ay CAINAN 987 — 325 662 years old
a MAHALALEEL | 987 — 395 592 years old
6" JARED 987 — 460 527 years old
7 ENOCH 987 — 622 365 years old
gm METHUSELAH | 987 — 687 300 years old
g@ LAMECH 987 — 874 113 years old
God’s providence allowed only those who eye-witnessed Adam’s funeral to be also alive at the time of
Enoch’s translation to heaven. Adam’s descendants could now pause to ponder the sad day of Adam’s
death and comparing it with the joyous day of Enoch’s translation. Therefore, Enoch’s departure was a
testimony of God’s faithfulness and of His promise of eternal life. Also remember, that Enoch prophesied
about the coming of the Lord with great power and glory (Jude 1:14). Consequently, by taking Enoch
alive to heaven, God was giving a powerful message that in like manner at the end of the world, on the
50
final day of redemption, some will also be translated without having gone down to the grave (1
Thessalonians 4:17), when, “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet
shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:52).
Of those who witnessed Enoch’s translation to heaven, Methuselah and Lamech had the greatest
responsibility to educate their son Noah in all matters of faith. They should now instruct and affirm him,
showing him how the Lord had guided them in the past history, while encouraging him to walk
steadfastly in the path of the Lord, keeping His commandments in future generations.
120 Years of Judgment for Antediluvians in 1536 A.M.
“And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days
shall be an hundred and twenty years... And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me;
for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make
thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with
pitch” (Genesis 6:3, 13, 14).
Throughout history, God has revealed his plans to His honored servants the prophets concerning the
destiny of this world. For a millennium, God’s untiring mercy had been proclaimed. Now, a short time of
probation extending mercy of 120 years to the antediluvians was announced to Noah. But the prophecy
regarding the worldwide flood had been revealed a thousand years before to his great grandfather Enoch.
God’s revelation of His judgment for the antediluvians, a revelation that was given to Methuselah’s
grandson Noah, was a relief balm for the faithful Methuselah who was eagerly awaiting the fulfillment of
God’s prophecies. Thus, Methuselah who had learned from his father Enoch about God’s judgment had
also known many centuries before that in the year of his death God would send the worldwide flood. But
God revealed to Noah the period of judgment time for the antediluvian world exactly one hundred and
twenty years before the flood. To Noah, it was revealed that the remaining time of probation for the
antediluvians was 120 years (Genesis 6:3). In that year 1536, the then 849 year old Methuselah also
learned that he would reach the age of 969 years as he was to live through those hundred and twenty years
of antediluvian investigative judgment, and he was a living testimony to the antediluvian world.
Enoch prophesied that God’s retributive judgment through a worldwide flood was coming, and in Noah’s
day, the time had finally come for the prophecy to be fulfilled. Although God’s judgment had been passed,
God extended His mercy and prolonged such judgment for a hundred and twenty years. Such a time was
but a short period of probation, thus the Holy Scriptures state:
“And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days
shall be an hundred and twenty years” (Genesis 6:3).
Methuselah remained exactly 120 more years to contemplate God’s mercy and to help his grandson Noah
build the ark while he continued preaching to the antediluvians about God’s extended mercy and
exhorting them regarding their need of repentance as God was about to bring His retributive judgment. In
His mercy, God gave them 120 years of more fervent preaching for righteousness.
51
Methuselah, an old and wise man was honoured by God in that he saw God’s salvation, and he regained
his strength by the preaching of his grandson Noah. And now, by faith, they were building the instrument
through which God would show His saving power. Like in New Testament times, to Simon, another old
man, was revealed by the Holy Spirit that “he should not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ”
(Luke 2:26). God had, in like manner, assured Methuselah that he should not die until he had seen God’s
way of salvation for His faithful ones. Thus, the man who lived the longest in this earth’s history (Genesis
5:27), Methuselah, died in the year of the flood.
Methuselah Dies in the Year of the Flood in 1656 A.M.
The year when Methuselah died concurs with the year when God destroyed the world in the worldwide
flood.
Methuselah’s name carried one of the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Enoch, his father, was shown in
detail everything concerning the flood. Thus, with a passionate desire to warn his contemporaries of an
impending destruction coming on the world, Enoch named his son Methuselah, meaning that at the time
of this child’s death judgment will be sent. His name has been defined as “messenger of death” but that is
far from the truth because Methuselah was a messenger of grace and hope; he warned his contemporaries
about God’s judgment. His name was a compound word that contained a riddle. Its meaning was: “When
he dies it shall be sent.” The word is a derivative of ““muth” a root that means death, and “shalach” which
means to send forth. The message was clear and overwhelming: that at the time of Methuselah’s death,
the flood would be sent. Therefore, Methuselah warned his contemporaries about the flood, even from his
birth in the year 687, by his prophetic name until the year of his death in 1656 at the age of 969, in the
very year of the flood.
687+ Year of Methuselah’s Birth
969 = Methuselah’s longevity (Genesis 5:27)
1656 Methuselah died in this year, year of the flood
Amazingly enough, Enoch’s prophecy was fulfilled in God’s time and Methuselah died in the very year
of the flood. Methuselah earnestly pleaded with his extended families for their salvation, but the majority
of his relatives rejected God’s judgment message. Only Noah, one of the many grand children of
Methuselah, was saved from the deluge. The Scriptures state that Methuselah had many more sons and
daughters (Genesis 5:26), including his son Lamech; Noah’s father, had many more children (Genesis
5:30), but of those multitudes only Noah was found righteous (Genesis 7:1), and he alone was saved with
his family. Noah’s brothers and sisters and his nephews and nieces rejected the warnings and perished in
the waters of the flood.
Lamech’s death, happening in the year 1651, five years before the death of Methuselah his father, might
have been an alarming occurrence, because it was an unusual thing that children should die before their
parents. But it was providentially done that way, so that Methuselah’s death, after a five year gap, could
be prominent, as he was the man of the prophecy. That legendary death would serve as a witness to the
antediluvians that God’s prophecies are faithful and his judgments true. Therefore, it was doubly
outstanding to see Methuselah’s long life of 969 years as he also outlived his son Lamech.
52
Methuselah, another mighty man of faith had succumbed to the power of death. He had been taught by his
father Enoch during those 300 years of interaction between father and son. Moreover, Methuselah had
known Adam for 243 years, he had interacted with the man through whom death was passed onto the rest
of this world, yet, a man who was forgiven and saved by grace. From Adam, Methuselah had also learned
to love the Redeemer of the world.
The Worldwide Flood in 1656 A.M.
The world had rejected God’s grace and Heaven’s retributive judgment had finally come upon planet
earth in the year 1656. The turbulent waters flooded in from two directions; from the windows of heaven,
and also from the fountains of the great deep (Genesis 7:11). One single family remained faithful to God
in the whole earth. One family condemned the world by their faithfulness:
“And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous
before me in this generation. For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and
forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth”
(Genesis 7:1, 4).
A week of prayer inside the ark, was now due for Noah and his family. He knew that they would have to
wait for one whole week in the ark before the Word of God should be fulfilled (Genesis 7:4). He was six
hundred years old when God commanded them to enter the ark (Genesis 7:1, 6). Little did he know that
the overall time for them to remain onboard their temporal floating home would be one year and seven
days until they should set foot on dry and solid land.
Noah’s faith was greatly honoured, as on the day of his birthday God saved his life and the lives of his
family. He was experiencing his 600th birthday when the flood hit the world in the second month, the
seventeenth day of the month (Genesis 7:11). The Word clarifies it plainly that it was the same day; thus
it was on the 17" day of the second month, in the 1656" year.
Baby Arphaxad Born inside Noah’s Ark in 1656 A.M.
Four married couples; three of them in childbearing age, entered the three story ark (Genesis 6:16). Noah,
the father of Shem, was 600 years old when God destroyed the world with a flood (Genesis 7:6). Noah’s
grandson Arphaxad was born during that very year of the flood in 1656, when Shem, Arphaxad’s father,
was 100 years old (Genesis 11:10).
Baby Arphaxad was born inside the ark. How can we be certain about this? Well, if Noah was 500 years
old when he begot Shem, (Genesis 5:32) and it was Noah’s 600th year of his birth when the flood came
(Genesis 7:11), which was the very year when Shem was 100 years old and that he begot Arphaxad
(Genesis 5:32), then, there is no doubt that the baby Arphaxad was born before they received God’s
command to disembark the ark. Now Peter explains that in the days of Noah, “few, that is, eight souls
were saved by water” (1 Peter 3:20). However, Peter does not eliminate the possibility for a baby in arms
to come out of the ark. He explains clearly that those eight souls were saved “while the ark was a
preparing” (1 Peter 3:20) That is, they were the only ones saved from among the many peoples. If a baby
53
or babies were born inside the ark, they were not saved from among the people who perished in the
deluge. You may say: Oh, but the Scriptures tell us that only eight people entered the ark (Genesis 7:13),
yes it is true! However, it does not tell us how many people came out of it. It only tells us that Arphaxad
was begotten when his father, who was inside the ark, was 100 years old, that is, in the year of the flood.
Therefore, the baby Arphaxad, even though he was carried in arms out of the ark by his parents, was not
saved from the waters; he was born in the ark after the heavy flood rain was poured down, when his
parents were safely out of danger. And because it takes nine months to be born, and the baby was
begotten inside the ark, they had plenty of time to wait for his birth. Remember that they spent one whole
year inside the ark; from 1656 -1657; they exited the ark on the 27" day of the second month when Noah
was 601 years old (Genesis 8:13-14). Of the flood year, only 40 days were the most trying ones (Genesis
7:17). The rest of the time they spent just waiting for the ark to rest on dried land. And it rested on Mount
Ararat five months after they entered the ark, when the waters had receded (Genesis 8:4). And even after
the ark had been stationed on solid ground, they had to wait another seven months inside the ark until
they were finally allowed to set foot on that solid ground (Genesis 8:13-14). To be exact, the time inside
the ark was one year and ten days; thus from the 17" day of the 2™ month in the 1656" year until the 27"
day of the second month in the 1657" year (Genesis 8:14-16).
The Tower of Babel
Some years after the flood, the whole world still enjoyed the communication through a common tongue,
as the Scripture reveals: “the whole earth was of one language and of one speech” (Genesis 11:1). But
rebellion against God resurged; this time, the world rebelled against God because the whole earth had
been destroyed with a worldwide flood. Therefore, journeying from the east, they found a valley in the
land of Shinar (Genesis 11:2) where they convened with the great multitudes to build a city and a tower
whose top might reach to heaven (Genesis 11:4). Their plans were designed but they needed to have a
ruler to govern them, so they decided to follow the leadership of the earth’s first monarch, Nimrod, the
son of Cush who “began to be a mighty one in the earth” (Genesis 10:8). Nimrod’s kingdom was
established in the city of Babel in the land of Shinar (Genesis 10:10). This Nimrod was the grandson of
Ham (Genesis 10:1, 6, 8), and Ham was Noah’s youngest son who was cursed by his father when Ham
saw Noah’s nakedness and made mockery of the matter (Genesis 9:22, 25). Nimrod also was Noah’s
great-grandson, but he encouraged the multitudes to build a tower in total defiance against God. They
were scheming against God and defied God’s ruling, so they agreed: “let us build us a city and a tower,
whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face
of the whole earth” (Genesis 11:4). Nonetheless, the very thing that they were shunning, the Lord brought
upon them “because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the
LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9).
Chart of the Number of Years that Noah Knew his Ancestors
54
3" ENOS 1140 — 1056 84 years
Ge CAINAN 1235 — 1056 179 years
=" MAHALALEEL | 1290 — 1056 234 years
6" JARED 1422 — 1056 366 years
is ENOCH 987 -
a METHUSELAH | 1656 — 1056 600 years
g” LAMECH 1651 — 1056 595 years
In His great wisdom, God prepared a very convenient generation for Noah to be born. It was the right
genealogical position for him to receive all the knowledge and wisdom from his ancestors’ powerful
minds; that is, from the third generation onward, remember that he knew his ancestor Enos for 84 years.
Thus, Noah attained the wisdom from the past generations and reached down to the future generations,
passing the knowledge of God on to his descendants even to the twentieth generation, as he knew his
descendant Abraham for 60 years. By interacting with his ancestors, back to seven generations, Noah was
the depositary of the teachings of those who were close to Adam: that is, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared,
Methuselah and Lamech. You can see in the chart above that Noah knew his ancestors for quite a long
time because those were almost millenarian people. However, he did not know his ancestor Enoch of the
seventh generation because the Lord took him to heaven at the young age of 365 years, exactly sixty-nine
years before Noah’s birth. Nonetheless, he received the abundant wisdom of his grandfather Methuselah,
of the eighth generation, with whom he interacted for the period of 600 years, from the time when this
man was 369 years old until his death at the age of 969. Lastly, he was instructed in the path of the Lord
by his own father Lamech, of the ninth generation, from whom he received instruction for a period of 595
years. Notice that Noah interacted with his grandfather Methuselah for a longer period of time than with
his father Lamech because Methuselah outlived Lamech by five years, as Lamech died five years before
the flood.
Chart of the Number of Years that Noah Knew his Descendants
10" NOAH 950 2006 - 1056 His life
ie SHEM 450 2006 - 1556 450 years
fo. ARPHAXAD 350 2006 - 1656 350 years
55
13" SALAH 315 2006 - 1691 315 years
14" EBER 285 2006 - 1721 285 years
15" PELEG 251 2006 - 1755 251 years
16" REU 221 2006 - 1785 221 years
i SERUG 189 2006 - 1817 189 years
18" NAHOR 159 2006 - 1847 159 years
19° TERAH 130 2006 - 1876 130 years
20° ABRAHAM 60 2006 - 1946 60 years
Noah’s Funeral in 2006 A.M.
Once again, the shadows of death had overpowered the life of a beloved child of God, when in the year
2006, the righteous Noah died at the age of 950 years. There, in his tomb, were laid down the mortal
remains of a great prophet whose hope in God’s redemption did not fade away. Noah descended to the
grave with the hope that the Redeemer of the world would come and liberate him from the power of death.
There laid a faithful man, who for almost a millennium had strived for the salvation of others. Now the
final chapter of his life in this world had come to an end. He had witnessed the depravity and wickedness
of the thousands of rebellious people who had been endowed with a free will and had chosen to fall into
the traps of Satan. Humanity’s abhorrence of God’s righteousness had sunken Noah’s world into a
horrendous state of worldwide lawlessness, as it is written of the kind of man that lived in every home, as
“every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). But Noah was a
different kind of man! Had we preserved Noah’s tomb, on his epitaph would be written as it is in the
Word of God: “Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:9).
Noah’s funeral could easily have been attended by all of his extended relatives that were alive on the day
of his death. God would not have confused the language of his faithful children of the lineage of God’s
people as on the occasion when God confused the language of the different races at the tower of Babel.
Therefore, Noah’s funeral service was solemnly held in the language of the children of God and it would
have been attended by his 450 year old son Shem of the eleventh generation, his 350 year old grandson
Arphaxad of the twelfth generation, his 315 year old great grandson Salah of the thirteenth generation, his
285 year old great-great-grand son Eber of the fourteenth generation, his 251 year old descendant Peleg of
the fifteenth generation, his 221 year old descendant Reu of the sixteenth generation, his 189 year old
descendant Serug of the seventeenth generation, his 159 year old descendant Nahor of the eighteenth
generation, his 130 year old descendant Terah of the nineteenth generation, and his 60 year old
descendant Abraham of the twentieth generation.
56
First Hand Knowledge of God
Heaven’s story of redemption was first communicated by God to Adam. That holy man of God
transmitted Heaven’s message onto his descendants and it was first hand; that is, secondary source
knowledge in the heart of Abraham. It was the Patriarch Noah who served as the bridge that grasped such
first-hand knowledge from the early patriarchs, and passed it onto his descendants, even unto Abraham.
Remember that Noah had known every one of his ancestors from Enos reaching to his descendants until
Abraham. Although Noah did not meet in person his ancestor Adam, Methuselah, the grandfather of Noah
did and.interacted with him for the span of 243 years and Noah interacted with his grandfather
Methuselah for the span of 600 years. Also, remember that Lamech, the father of Noah, had known Adam
for a span of 56 years, and interacted with his son Noah for a span of 595 years. Therefore, Noah had
received such precious knowledge from the very primary sources and passed it on to his descendant
Abraham with whom he interacted for the span of 60 years.
Therefore, the faithful accounts of the book of Genesis were verbally communicated by the very primary
sources; those patriarchs who lived long lives and were almost millennial people. For that reason, the
Word of God’s account is certainly first-hand knowledge for us who acknowledge the birth of Israel as an
offspring of Abraham, who was a secondary source recipient of that precious knowledge of the story of
redemption. Therefore, the historical facts about creation, the Garden of Eden, Adam’s fall, the
worldwide flood and the story of redemption were almost first hand in the heart of Abraham who had
known Noah, whose father and grandfather had received such fresh knowledge from Adam himself.
Chart of the Number of Years that Abraham Knew his Ancestors
10" NOAH 2006 — 1946 A.M. 60 years
fi” SHEM 2156 — 1946 A.M. 210 years Shem outlived him
by 35 years.
19" ARPHAXAD | 2094 — 1946 A.M. 148 years
13" SALAH 2124 — 1946 A.M. 178 years Salah outlived him
by 3 years
14” EBER 2185 — 1946 A.M. 239 years Eber outlived him by
64 years
ith PELEG 1994 — 1946 A.M. 48 years
16" REU 2024 — 1946 A.M. 78 years
57
7" SERUG 2047 — 1946 A.M. 101 years
18" NAHOR 1995 — 1946 A.M. 49 years
19” TERAH 2081 — 1946 A.M. 135 years
20" ABRAHAM | 2121-1946 A.M. 175 years His life
Noah was alive when his great-grandson Nimrod and some of his descendants began building the tower of
Babel. Now, Abraham knew his ancestor Noah for the span of 60 years. Therefore, Abraham was alive to
know about Nimrod and the tower of Babel because he interacted with all his ancestors even from their
father Noah. Some of his ancestors were contemporaries of Nimrod; for instance, Abraham knew his
ancestor Salah all the years of his life. This Salah belonged to the same generation of his cousin Nimrod.
Therefore, Nimrod was also alive but scattered and with a new tongue, somewhere in some distant land
all the days of Abraham’s life. Because the generation of Salah still enjoyed a long life, past the 400 years
range, Abraham knew about the tower of Babel from the mouth of eyewitnesses. Abraham’s ancestry of
Shem’s lineal blood was also scattered after the confusion of their tongues in the valley of Shinar at the
construction of the tower of Babel and they settled down in Mesopotamia in Ur of the Chaldeans, which
was a settlement of the Semites: the descendants of Shem who spoke the Aramaic language. But the
Semites were receding into idolatry, therefore, God called Abraham out of Ur to Canaan. Shem was an
eyewitness of the flood and his descendants were the eyewitnesses of the tower of Babel and God’s
intervention in the confusion of tongues. From them Abraham also learned about God’s intervention in
the affairs of this world.
Abraham not only knew Noah for over half a century, but he also knew Shem all the days of Abraham’s
life as he knew him for 175 years. Bear in mind that Shem outlived his descendant Abraham by 35 years.
Abraham also knew his ancestor Arphaxad of the 12" generation for a span of 148 years. Abraham also
knew his ancestor Salah of the 13" generation all the years of his life because Salah outlived Abraham by
three years. The 13" generation from Adam to Nimrod (Salah’s cousin) was the generation that built the
infamous tower of Babel with Nimrod as their leader. He knew his ancestor Eber of the 14" generation all
the years of his life, as Eber outlived Abraham by 64 years. He also knew his ancestor Peleg for a span of
48 years. Abraham knew his great-great-grandfather Reu for a span of 78 years and his great-grandfather
Serug for a span of 101 years. He knew his grandfather Nahor for a span of 49 years and he knew his
father Terah for a span of 135 years.
Chart of the Age of Abraham’s Ancestors when Abraham Emigrated from
Haran to Canaan
58
i SHEM 2021 - 1556 465
12" ARPHAXAD 2021 - 1656 365
13" SALAH 2021 - 1691 330
14" EBER 2021 - 1721 300
eh SERUG 2021 - 1817 204
19° TERAH 2021 - 1876 145
20" ABRAHAM 2021 - 1946 75
Mount Ararat located in the east of Turkey is where the ark rested after the flood. From there, the
descendants of Noah traveled toward the southeast until they reached the valley of Shinar where they
began the construction of the tower of Babel and later built the city of Babylon in what is present-day Iraq.
Traveling further south, towards what is present-day south Iraq was situated Ur of the Chaldeans; the
place where the Semites had settled down and from where Abraham was called to immigrate to the land
of Canaan. That whole region is called Mesopotamia because it is in the middle of two rivers; the
Euphrates spoken of in Genesis and the Tigris which both rise from the east of Turkey and flow into Iraq
and the Persian Gulf.
Terah’s youngest son Haran, the brother of Abraham, died in the land of his birth; that is, in Ur of the
Chaldeans (Genesis 11:28). Bereaved of his son, Terah took his son Abraham and the orphan Lot, his
grandson (Genesis 11:31), who were also born in Ur of the Chaldeans, so they started their migration and
headed northward until they reached a place called Haran; present-day Syria. But Terah decided to dwell
in Haran where he finally died at a good old age of 205 years (Genesis 11:31-32). Abraham was 135 years
of age when his father Terah died in the land of Haran. Nonetheless, when Abraham was 75 years of age
(Genesis 12:4) and his father Terah was 145 years old, God commanded him to emigrate from Haran
towards Canaan, leaving his country, his kindred and his father’s house (Genesis 12:1).
Abraham Migrates Towards Hebron in 2021 A.M.
Abraham settled down in Mamre, Hebron (Genesis 13:18), which was located in the midst of Canaan
(Genesis 14:14-15). The year was 2021 A.M. when Abraham settled down in Hebron at the age of 75. His
ancestor Shem was 465 years old, his ancestor Arphaxad was 365 years of age and his ancestor Salah was
330 years old. While his ancestor Eber was 300 years of age, his great-grandfather Serug was 204 years
old and his father Terah was 145 years of age. Therefore, all those dignitaries of Abraham’s ancestry,
among whom the son, grandson and great-great-grand son of Noah outlived the father of faith, were
aware of God’s command for Abraham to emigrate.
While in Canaan, in that same year 2021, God revealed to Abraham His prophecy pertaining to the birth
of Israel as a nation and promised him as an inheritance for his seed all that his eyes could behold north,
59
south, east and west from his standing point (Genesis 13:14). However Abraham argued with the Lord,
questioning His promise, alleging that his steward Eleazar’s son would be his heir (Genesis 15:2-3). God
reaffirmed him that his servant would not be the heir but his own begotten son (Genesis 15:4).
In that same year 2021 Abraham traveled further south from Canaan toward Egypt by reason of a great
famine (Genesis 12:10). While in Egypt Abraham covered his true relationship with his wife Sarah and
Pharaoh took Sarah to his palace (Genesis 12:15), and God plagued Pharaoh with great plagues because
of Sarah (Genesis 12:17). So Abraham was deported from Egypt with all his people (Genesis 12:20).
Abraham’s Prophecy of the Nation of Israel in 2021 A.M.
After Abraham’s deportation from Egypt, as he had settled down in Canaan in the year 2021, God showed
him a vision (Genesis 15:1) in which the prophecy regarding his seed was given. The prophecy was
spoken differently to its actual fulfillment centuries later. So God revealed to the 75-year-old prophet the
future of Israel; a nation from Abraham’s bosom. The prophecy foretold Israel’s sacred history in its
beginnings and how the Israelites were to spend time in a foreign land where they would serve in slavery
the last years of their stay. But the prophecy is worded as follows:
“And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,
and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13).
The prophecy stipulated a shorter period but in the end the Israelites’ stay in Egypt was lengthened by
thirty years (Exodus 12:40). As for the lengthening of such a prophetic period, the prophecy and its
chronological fulfillment cannot by any means be shortened or analyzed in any other way than as it
happened, or else the whole biblical chronology would be jeopardized and its prophecies spoiled. If the
full period were shortened by 30 years, as it was worded in Genesis, then the prophecies regarding the
coming of our Redeemer would not fall in the right chronological year, and therefore Daniel’s prophecy
pertaining to the end of the 2300 year period for the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary (Daniel 8:14)
would not fall in its exact date. Therefore, dire consequences would result, should we decide to reject
God’s sacred history as it happened; the whole plan of salvation would be misunderstood. Had the
chronology been altered, nobody would have been expecting the birth of the Messiah on the rightful date
that it was prophesied. The judgment, which has begun in the Most Holy Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary,
where our Redeemer intercedes for us, would not have been understood to fall on the right date.
Fortunately the Word of God gives ample evidence that the prophecy regarding Israel’s sojourn in Egypt
was fulfilled when the Israelites had remained in that land exactly 430 years (Exodus 12:40):
“Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years”
(Exodus 12: 40.
How God Protected the Prophecies
In the past, when God revealed great prophecies, He sometimes safeguarded the message in a form that
Satan, who has been kept ignorant regarding God’s proceedings, would not understand and therefore
would not thwart God’s plan of salvation. Therefore, when Abram received his prophecy, it was worded
60
in a way that even he himself did not understand all the details of it. He had not begotten Isaac, he did not
know about Jacob and his twelve tribes; he did not know that it was going to be Egypt — the place where
his descendants would be enslaved.
The fact that Abraham was not told the name of the enslavers supports the notion that God was
safeguarding His plan of salvation. The text only reveals that Abraham’s “seed shall be a stranger” and it
states it in the singular form; so not to give it away for the enemy. Therefore, God mentioned “thy seed”
instead of saying your people. Consider the fact that from Adam’s time all patriarchs had been expecting
the fulfillment of the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 about the Savior, “The Seed”. Consequently, God
revealed accurate chronological facts to Abraham so that Biblical prophecies would be protected against
God’s enemies who would try to eradicate God’s precious truth regarding the plan of salvation.
God, who inspired Moses to write down the wording of the prophecy spoken to the Patriarch Abraham is
very careful to employ accurate words to also write down the exact span of time that Israel spent in Egypt.
Therefore, Moses emphasizes the importance of knowing exact dates in order for chronological events
and prophecies to be fulfilled in their due and appointed time.
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in 2045 A.M.
In the year 2031, when Abraham was 85 years of age as they had settled down in Canaan, Sarah wavered
in her faith and encouraged Abraham to sleep with Hagar her Egyptian maid in order for them to have a
son. From that union between Abraham and Hagar, Ishmael was born the following year in 2032 when
Abraham was 86 years of age (Genesis 16:3, 16).
Thirteen years later, in the year 2045, Abraham received the good news that Sarah his wife will give birth
to their wedlock’s only son Isaac. Abraham was 99 years of age and his son Ishmael was 13 years old
when Isaac was born and both father and son were circumcised then. (Genesis 17:24-25). “In the selfsame
day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son” (Genesis 17:26).
In that same year 2045, when Abraham was 99 years of age, the Almighty God appeared to him (Genesis
17:1). In the plains of Mamre, the Lord also revealed to Abraham that his wife Sarah was going to have a
son (Genesis 18:1, 10). Then the Lord told Abraham about His judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah and
the impending destruction because of the cities’ wickedness; He said:
“.,..Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go
down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me;
and if not, I will know” (Genesis 18:20-21).
Sodom and Gomorrah were located among beautiful rivers, the land was “well watered everywhere; so
splendid was its natural view that it is described “even as the garden of the Lord” (Genesis 13:10). “But
the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly” (Genesis 13:13). On that
evening of 2045 after the Lord had visited Abraham, two angels came to save Lot from Sodom (Genesis
19:1) and they accepted Lot’s invitation to lodge at his house that night. But after dinner when they were
ready to lay down to sleep, the men of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house with the intention to sodomize the
two angels, who in the eyes of the perverse males of Sodom, were just two men (Genesis 19:4-5). The
61
angels struck those perverts with blindness (Genesis 19:11); but those men together with the rest of the
cities were reserved for utter destruction in their unexpected and retributive punishment at daybreak.
Little did they know that judgment had already been passed and that impending destruction was coming
their way at sunrise the next day; neither did they know that Abraham had been interceding for them on
the noon of the day before but that there had not been found even ten righteous people in those cities for
which the Lord would have spared them from destruction (Genesis 18:32). So faithless were Sodom’s
inhabitants that not even Lot’s daughters, who were married with their families, believed the anguished
pleadings of Lot to obey God and abandon the city for their own salvation (Genesis 19:14).
After a sleepless night, trying to convince his family that two angels of God had come to destroy the city
(Genesis 19:13), Lot was taken out of Sodom at sunrise, and as soon as he was out of danger with his two
unmarried daughters and wife “the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the
Lord out of heaven” (Genesis 19:24).
Abraham’s Funeral in Ephron in the year 2121 A.M.
In the year 2121, at the age of 175 (Genesis 25:7), Abraham died and although he was born in Ur (South
Iraq), he was buried in Hebron (Israel) in the field of Ephron, by his sons Isaac and Ishmael (Genesis
25:9). Ishmael, whose mother was an Egyptian (Genesis 16:1), had come to the funeral from his kindred
in Egypt. This Ishmael who had come to mourn his father was sent away at an early age by Abraham and
“dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt” (Genesis
21:21). It was in the wilderness of Paran where Ishmael started his family. Ishmael is still remembered in
Egypt, and one of the country’s provinces bears his name Ismailia. Also in that province, the city of
Naphish is called after the name of Ishmael’s son Naphish (Genesis 25:15). Just like the Word of God
says, the towns in that province were called after the names of Ishmael’s sons (Genesis 25:16).
Abraham, the father of faith, was the bridge that grasped so vast a knowledge of the plan of salvation
from his ancestors and passed it on to his descendants, even onto Israel — the depositary of the oracles of
God. He had known the Patriarch Noah for the last 60 years of his life — the man who built the ark. Thus,
Abraham, who was 60 years of age, might as well have been present at the funeral of Noah. The burial of
Noah took place somewhere in the Semitic region. Mesopotamia was the Semite route; that is, it was the
region where the descendants of Shem had spread. It was in that region where Abraham had interactions
with all his ancestors from whom he was encouraged to uphold the faith of God’s seed. Abraham had
relatives in Ur, from where he traveled northward, and tracing the route of his Semitic ancestry he arrived
with his father Terah in Haran. In Haran, he remained for a time where he had the opportunity to visit and
interact with many of his ancestors while he also acquired much wealth and servants (Genesis 12:5). But
at the age of seventy five, he was commanded by God to emigrate away from his country, his kindred
(ancestors) and his father’s house (Genesis 12:1).
That country spoken of as Abraham’s father’s house from where Abraham emigrated, was Syria; the
region was called Padanaram and the city was called Haran. Abraham’s son Isaac married Rebekah, the
Syrian of Padanaram (Genesis 25:20), the granddaughter of Nahor (Genesis 22:20-23). It was also Syria
to which Jacob fled from the fury of his brother Esau — from Beersheba, the city of Abraham (Genesis
22:19), to Haran (Genesis 28:10) the city of the children of Nahor. It was in Syria where Jacob married
62
the Syrian Rachel, the great granddaughter of Nahor. You see how Jacob was the son of a Syrian woman
and the husband of a Syrian woman. No wonder God commands Israel to acknowledge their Syrian roots:
“And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he
went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and
populous” (Deuteronomy 26:5).
63
CHAPTER TWO
EGYPT: AN EXODUS TO FREEDOM
“And God said unto Moses, 1AM THAT I AM. and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
I AM hath sent me unto you” (Exodus 3:14).
Shem Dies at Age 600 in the Year 2156 A.M.
Imagine what a multitudinous gathering of the Semitic people from the regions of what is present-day
Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and Iraq, who attended the funeral of their ancestor Shem, who died at the age of
600 in the year 2156. Abraham could not attend because he had died 35 years earlier. Isaac was 110 years
old and living in Beersheba (Canaan). The 50-year-old Jacob was living in Haran, Syria; so he could
attend his ancestor’s funeral.
Chart of the Number of Years that Jacob Knew his Ancestors
11' SHEM 2156 — 2106 50 Years
13" SALAH 2124 — 2106 18 Years
14” EBER 2185 — 2106 79 Years
20" ABRAHAM | 2121 — 2106 15 Years
a ISAAC 2226 — 2106 120 Years
ore JACOB 2253 — 2106 147 Years (His Life)
The Semitic Route
The Semites were established and spread along the Mesopotamian region, and the Semitic route was later
elongated by the journey of Abraham toward Canaan to the west of Mesopotamia. Both Abraham and his
grandson Jacob had to emigrate from their homeland to reach the cradle of Shem’s seed. Abraham
journeyed on the eastern side and Jacob on the western side of the Syrian Desert to reach Haran in Syria.
God brought Abraham from the southeastern land of Ur to Haran; He also brought Jacob from the south-
western land of Canaan to Haran. Now you may ask... for what purpose did God bring those patriarchs to
Syria? Well, God intended the descendants of Shem to interact with their ancestors and thus develop a
64
solid foundation of their faith. Although Abraham was not alive to attend the funeral of Shem, he had
known him in life. Abraham also interacted with his ancestor Noah; remember that Abraham was 60
years of age when Noah died. If Abraham emigrated from Ur of the Chaldeans to Haran before the death
of Noah, and we know that he remained there until the 75" year of his life, it was for the purpose of
interacting with his ancestors. Therefore, if Noah lived in Haran or in any surrounding villages, it would
have been easier for Abraham not only to interact with Noah but also to attend Noah’s funeral.
Notice God’s providence even towards Ham who was cursed by Noah. To all the places where the
children of Ham had spread, God sent His children of the lineage of Shem - even to Babylon, Nineveh,
Sodom and Gomorrah. Of the children of Ham, two are well-known for having produced nations that
rebelled against God: Cush and Canaan (Genesis 10:6). Cush, for instance, was the father of Nimrod who
built Babel (Genesis 10:10), which later became Babylon in Mesopotamia; he also built Nineveh (Genesis
10:11) on the other side of the Tigris River near the border of present-day Iraq and Turkey. Canaan, on
the other hand, was the father of the Canaanites who built Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 10:19), which
were located near the Dead Sea between Israel and Jordan. In all the settlements of the children of Ham,
Abraham the descendant of Shem, gave testimony of his faith and traveled the lands of the apostate
children of the world. He could witness first-hand the work of rebellion at the construction of the tower of
Babel. But under God’s guidance, he emigrated towards Canaan and settled down in the plains of Mamre
(Genesis 18:1; 19:28); in the mountainous region of Hebron (Genesis 13:18), from where he interceded
for his family in Sodom (Genesis 18: 25-26).
Israel Settles Down in Egypt in 2236 A.M.
Remember that God did not allow Abraham to settle down in Egypt, when there was a famine in his days
(Genesis 26:1). God also forbade Isaac to journey into Egypt when there was another famine (Genesis
26:2). But with Jacob it was a totally different story:
“And he said, I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of
thee a great nation” (Genesis 46:3).
It was in the year 2236 when God estimated it necessary that the children of Israel emigrate from their
homeland Beersheba in Canaan (Genesis 46:5) to Goshen in Egypt (Genesis 47:1). They emigrated
because of the great famine that hit the whole world, which was more severe in the land of Egypt and
surrounding nations. (Genesis 41:56). But more importantly, Israel departed to Egypt so that the prophecy
spoken to Abraham might be fulfilled. To Abraham God promised: “I will make of thee a great nation...”
(Genesis 12:2). On the day when the 130-year-old Jacob established himself with his family of seventy
members in Goshen, God’s promise for Abraham and Israel began to be fulfilled. Consequently, the
promise given to Abraham was fulfilled a long time after Abraham’s death, when God commanded Jacob
to leave Canaan and settle down in Egypt. Therefore, the text in Genesis 46:3 is emphatic “for I will there
make of thee a great nation”; that is, when the Israelites were in Egypt, and never before that time.
Therefore, Israel enjoyed the beginnings of nationhood in 2236; the year when they set foot on Egypt’s
ground. From then on, they increased in number (Exodus 1:7).
65
Exponential Hebrew Population Growth
As soon as the children of Israel touched Egyptian soil, they began growing in exponential numbers. An
adjective, an adverb and a verb describe the manner of explosion growth that the children of Israel
experienced to become a nation. Consequently, they “were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and
multiplied” (Exodus 1:7). The marvelous Hebrew population growth became so prominent that the king
of Egypt exclaimed with fear: “Behold the children of Israel are more and mightier than we” (Exodus 1:9).
They had become a great and powerful nation inside Egypt so that the Egyptian authorities concocted
diverse means of reducing the Hebrew population. As Egypt’s sovereignty could not contain Israel’s
population growth, they resorted to implement corporal punishment and forceful slave labour. But such
measures only stirred up the Israelites’ longing for greater growth, and Egypt’s demography continued to
be modified by the Hebrew nation. Thus, the Holy Scriptures depict the Hebrew situation:
“But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of
the children of Israel” (Exodus 1:12).
Starting with 70 people at the time of arrival in Egypt (Exodus 1:5), Israel’s population began an
exponential growth that continued for the next 430 years. After more than four centuries had elapsed, it
would number 603,550 male adults twenty years and over (Numbers 1:20-46).
The Prophet Moses Born in 2586 A.M.
The time was soon approaching for Israel’s deliverance, and Satan, who was conscious of the prophecy of
redemption through the Messiah, became very active in his desperate hope to thwart God’s plans.
Through his right arm Pharaoh, he devised a ploy to hinder the progress of Israel in becoming a great
nation by inflicting slavery on them (Exodus 1:11). Then Satan schemed a wicked plan to slaughter the
Hebrew male born children through strict orders given to their midwives (Exodus 1:16). Such a tactic did
not work because the chosen midwives for that terrible task were pious women who feared God and
disregarded Pharaoh’s orders. Therefore, Satan carried out a new scheme, through Pharaoh, who passed a
mandatory law enforcing all Egyptian citizens to cast into the river all the male born Israelite babies
(Exodus 1:22). It seems that Satan was afraid of something bigger as he exhausted all means through all
his ploys to intercept God’s plan. Many children were slaughtered and drowned in the Nile river, yet God
protected His deliverer.
Moses was born in the year 2586. It is fascinating how God used Pharaoh’s daughter to accomplish His
plan of deliverance for Israel. In vain did Satan use Pharaoh to try and thwart God’s plan. Pharaoh’s
daughter named the baby Moses (Exodus 2:10). Although Moses had an Egyptian name, he was reared
with a strong faith in the God of Abraham by his biological mother (Exodus 2:8).
The Israelites had been taught by their forefathers that by Divine providence Israel should remain in
Egypt for 400 years, part of which they would spend under Egyptian bondage. This was to be prior to the
repossession and inheritance of the land of Canaan. But the children of Israel who lived to see God’s
deliverance and the fulfillment of the prophecy given to Abraham, had to seek God’s will. They knew
about the prophecy; but did they really understand the elements of its fulfillment?
66
Moses Becomes a Fugitive in 2626 A.M.
Regardless of the spiritual condition of the people of Israel, Moses made preparations for the fulfillment
of the prophecy and he became the deliverer of God’s people, because he was educated in accordance
with the precepts of God. He was claimed and legitimized as a son by the Pharaoh’s daughter, yet as he
was a Hebrew, he strived to maintain close connection with his people (Exodus 2:7-10).
Living in the palace, Moses had a clear knowledge that God had appointed him to be the deliverer of His
people Israel. Thus, he was anxiously waiting for the fulfillment of the prophecy spoken by Abraham
concerning the period of four hundred years. Somehow, he had come to understand that on the day of his
birthday, when he should turn exactly forty years of age, he would bring liberation. Thus the Scriptures
speak of Moses in such a way:
“And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel”
(Acts 7:23).
Moses visited his people on the day of his fortieth birthday in the year 2626. This is evidenced in the
phrase “when he was full forty.” He intended to associate himself with his people and let them know that
God would bring deliverance under his leadership.
Like every good warrior, he hoped to employ his diplomacy to gain adherents to the movement of
emancipation that should get momentum sooner or later. But first, he had to win his brethren the Israelites’
affection and confidence before he could give them directions. He had decided to visit them with the ideal
of presenting himself as one with them, so that they could understand that one of the princes sitting at
Pharaoh’s table was on their side. Although, he displayed the outward trappings of the idolatrous
Egyptian royalty and was literate in the culture and religion of that pagan nation, he was a faithful
believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; thus a worshiper of the God of his brethren, the children
of Israel.
Moses wished to give his people a sign that he was one of them and that deliverance was on its way. He
wanted to prove to them that he had no spiritual connection with the Egyptian dominance. He wished to
demonstrate to them that he was led by a different spirit than that shown by his palace peers. Accordingly,
when visiting his brothers, as he encountered a Hebrew who was being beaten by an Egyptian
superintendent, Moses grasped his first opportunity to give the Israelites an indication that through him
God had a plan to overthrow the Egyptian oppression. Thus he ventured into slaughtering the Egyptian in
the sight of the only witness, the mistreated Hebrew (Exodus 2: 11,12).
But no rushed conspiracy was to play a pivotal role in bringing about the deliverance of God’s people.
Obtaining royal and priestly education, Moses was received as an Egyptian prince, yet he knew very well
that he himself was a Hebrew, and he was also waiting the time for the liberation of the people of Israel.
He understood that he played an important part in God’s plan of deliverance. So, the Scriptures state:
“And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown...” (Exodus 2:11). What happened in those
days? Well Moses who had been expecting the fulfillment of the prophecy, jumped ahead of God and
made a mistake; he killed an Egyptian man (Exodus 2:12).
It is very easy to just think that Moses made a big mistake and get the matter over with. But the children
of Israel made an even bigger mistake. On occasion of his visit to the children of Israel, Moses was
67
hopeful that the Hebrews should be expecting his visit, but more importantly, he expected that the
children of Israel would know that the fulfillment of the prophecy was at hand. He wanted to further
confirm to them that God was bringing deliverance through him. In slaying the Egyptian, Moses had
hoped that it was enough of a sign for them to understand that he was one with them and that he was
God’s appointed deliverer. Obviously they did not see this as a sign of deliverance, which reveals that
they were not ready to receive emancipation. The Scriptures state the reason as to what prompted Moses
to defend the Hebrew slave in such a way that he even smote the heartless Egyptian to death:
“For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but
they understood not” (Acts 7:25).
Israel had not made preparations for the fulfillment of the prophecy because, in their minds, God’s
promise had fallen into oblivion. They were totally unaware that God had intended for them to remain in
Egypt only the 400 years that Abraham had prophesied of. They had neglected to make preparations
regarding the prophecy because they had not understood God’s Word. The problem was not just that
Moses slaughtered the Egyptian, but that the people of Israel had failed to understand God’s plan of
deliverance.
Moses’ Disappointment by Prophecy’s Postponement
When Moses killed the Egyptian, he was 40 years old (See Acts 7:23); exactly ten years prior to the
accomplishment of 400 years of Israel in Egypt as anticipated in the Genesis prophecy. So it appears that
Moses expected to be the deliverer of Israel when the span of 400 years should elapse. But just a decade
before the fulfilment of that prophecy, all Egypt knew was that Moses had slaughtered an Egyptian man.
He had to flee as a fugitive out of Egypt because Pharaoh wanted to kill him (Exodus 2:15). Consequently,
he remained 40 years in the desert herding flocks in Midian (Exodus 3:1; Acts 7:30) until he should return
to Egypt at the age of 80 (Exodus 7:7) for his second attempt at liberating his people Israel. Finally,
Moses lived for 40 more years in the wilderness leading the people of Israel until his death when he was
120 years old (Deuteronomy 34:7).
Prominent in the life of Moses is the number 40. Could it be possible that he considered that at the age of
forty he would begin to deliver Israel? Did he consider it relevant the fact that it took forty days and forty
nights for the outpouring of the great worldwide flood of Genesis 7:12? Did Moses also consider the
significance of Noah’s action in opening the ark’s window forty days after the ark touched ground?
(Genesis 8:6). Did he think it was relevant that Isaac’s age of forty at the time of his wedding should be
also mentioned? (Genesis 25:20).
Moses knew that ten remaining years were still pending; ten years should pass until the fulfillment of the
400-year prophecy. Moreover, he understood that he was the chosen person to carry out the deliverance of
the people of Israel. Somehow, he had come to understand that the number forty had something special.
But he did not figure out that the forty days and forty nights of the great deluge had some special meaning
for the outcome in Moses’ personal life.
Looking retrospectively, Moses could understand what happened to the prophecy given to Abraham.
There had been a 30-year postponement for its fulfillment; there was therefore a disappointment for the
68
faithful Moses. The prophecy had been contingent or conditional on the actions of Moses while in Egypt.
But more importantly the prophecy was conditional on the attitudes and position taken by the children of
Israel. Therefore the delay caused a great disappointment; the prophecy of deliverance must now be
fulfilled only after another forty years should pass.
By faith Moses had waited for the time of the end of Israel’s slavery. He had considered that the
beginning of the movement for deliverance should go forward at the time when he should turn forty years
of age. But in Moses’ mind was not just the end of Egyptian bondage that had prominence; he was
eagerly waiting for the prophecy to be fulfilled exactly as promised to Abraham. Thus, for the first forty
years of his life, and even when living in the Egyptian palaces, he was willing to become the spiritual
leader of the children of Israel.
“By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
Esteeming the reproach of Christ’s greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the
recompense of the reward” (Hebrews 11:24-26).
The Scripture says “By faith Moses...” this was not the faith of the people of Israel for they were not
making preparations for God’s deliverance. But in faith Moses had waited for the first forty years of his
life, hopeful to take a central part in the fulfillment of such a wonderful prophecy. Sadly, the time had
come and gone. Now Moses could ponder about what went wrong. Did God anticipate this great
disappointment?
Great was the disappointment of Moses who in the desert would ponder the outcome of the recent events
back in Egypt. Forty long and gloomy years were now due for Moses, who knew very well that God had
indeed rescued him from the waters of the Nile, and that his life had been preserved for a special mission
of deliverance for Israel.
The prophecy had been postponed because of the unbelief of God’s people. They had failed to understand
that God was sending them a deliverer; but more than that they had failed to keep the faith in God and
therefore they had failed to make preparations for the fulfillment of God’s prophecy. Thus, God allowed
Moses to also make a mistake that for the next forty years would be the great disappointment of his mind.
In great disappointment, Moses had to flee as a fugitive, knowing that his dream had not come true. It was
a terrible blow for this faithful man of God. Living in solitude, he settled down in a remote place in the
desert as he started a humble family. He began a new life; leaving the palace and royalty to become a
commoner in the fields, working as a shepherd herding sheep. Thus, his dream to bring deliverance for
the people of Israel had been crashed, at least for the next forty years.
Greater than his disillusionment were the doubts beginning to creep into his mind. Could it be that the
prophecy was not meant to be fulfilled as he had understood it? Perhaps God had not chosen him to be the
leader in the great movement of liberation? What if the people of Israel were not meant to be emancipated
at the end of the four hundred years? Did he act naively in defending the Hebrew slave? Was he totally
responsible for the failure in the fulfillment of the prophecy?
But as we have seen, the real culprits were the children of Israel. They had not understood the prophecy
and had not inquired of the Lord as to who was God’s appointed deliverer. They should have realized that
69
Moses, even when he shared the comfort of Egyptian royalty was indeed a true Israelite, descended from
a Hebrew family of the tribe of Levi. His close family members with whom Moses had not broken
connection were his older brother Aaron (Exodus 4:14) and his sister Miriam.
Yet the Hebrews ignored the facts; God was offering them help, but brought further harm to themselves
by spreading the false news of sedition on the part of Moses whom they were not willing to accept as their
leader. It is evident that they refused to accept Moses; but the terrible matter was deeper than that; they
did not yet have the predisposition of accepting God’s guidance. Consequently, the Hebrews questioned
God’s providence: “Who made thee a prince and a judge over us (Exodus 2:14)?” Yet God did not
forsake His people, His Word says:
“And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai an angel of
the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush” (Acts 7:30).
After the forty years had passed God appeared to Moses, Who commanded him to go back to Egypt and
liberate His people. At that time, Israel’s generation that saw God’s providence understood the necessity
of pleading with God in prayer for deliverance. Living in slavery, they felt compelled to turn to God.
Whether they understood that the number of years stipulated in the prophecy had reached its culmination,
or whether they pleaded with God just because of the rigorous enslavement, God knows. Thus in regard
to the fulfillment of God’s promise, the children of Israel beseeched the Lord with all their heart so that
God’s holy plan of deliverance should be expedited.
The time had passed for the prophecy’s fulfilment, and the people of Israel began praying to God for
deliverance. God heard their supplications, which went to Heaven in the form of groanings, sighs and
cries. It appears that they prayed to God by reason of the bondage and not because they understood
Abraham’s prophecy of 400 years, which was extended to 430 years. Notice that the word ‘bondage’ is
repeated twice:
“And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by
reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. And
God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob”
(Exodus 2:23-24).
Right after departing Egypt, Moses commanded twelve princes to go and search Canaan. “And they
returned from searching of the land after forty days” (Numbers 13:25). Because of the spies’ unbelief
which Israel collectively joined in murmur and reproach against God, the Lord punished them, just like he
did to Moses: “After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for
a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise” (Numbers
14:34). Did the Lord breach His promise? Yes, He did! And it was because of Israel’s unbelief, which
happened twice, once when Moses defended the Hebrew slave and secondly when they joined the
unfaithful princes who brought an evil report against God. Just like Moses passed 40 years in the
wilderness also Israel needed to spend 40 years in a desert that would teach them obedience and respect
for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.
70
Israel’s 430 Years Sojourn in Egypt
While in Genesis the prophecy signaled 400 years of Israel’s sojourning in a foreign land (Genesis 15:13),
in the book of Exodus the actual fulfillment was not until a span of 430 years had elapsed. Now, the
children of Israel were faced with a prophecy whose fulfillment was conditional on their faith. Exodus
12:40 is, therefore, relevant to our understanding of God’s prophecy given to Abraham. It is an
elucidation that clarifies the fact that God’s prophetic Word in that regard was intended for the children of
Israel living in Egypt. The text uses a phrase that leaves no doubt that the prophecy of the 430 years for
Israel under the Egyptian slavery was aimed to include only the people of Israel who grew to become a
nation while in Egypt. The explanatory phrase “who dwelt in Egypt” makes it crystal clear that the span
of 430 years for Israel’s sojourning in Egypt began its counter at the very first day when the 130-year-old
Jacob and his family entered Egypt.
“Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years”
(Exodus 12:40).
We have seen how the Word of God explains that the prophecy of the 430 years begins with Jacob and
not with Abraham. Abraham and Isaac did not enter Egypt, to settle down there and become a nation.
Jacob, on the contrary did enter Egypt to become a nation. In the Biblical accounts, we find that God’s
repetition of historical facts confirms our faith in God’s truth and it leaves no space for falsity,
misrepresentation, or distortion of the Word of God. Moreover, every time that a repetition of a Biblical
fact is given, it is added extra information in it.
Once again, God reiterates historical facts to affirm and confirm the trustworthiness of His Holy Word.
The previous verse has already stated that the sojourn of Israel in Egypt was 430 years. Now Exodus
12:41 restates the same fact with a little extra detail which is an eye opener for understanding the
prophecy. It states:
“And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass,
that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12: 41).
When God repeats one fact, He intends to awaken His people’s minds in order for them to keep focused
as to what eventuated in divine history. God encourages and persuades His remnant people to reason
together with the Lord, in this case as to why the prophecy was not fulfilled on the anticipated date as He
had told Abraham. Most certainly, God is faithful to His word and His truth is absolute. Nonetheless,
certain people fail to understand and thus prevaricate from God’s truth. Consequently, it is immensely
imperative that God’s faithful people follow the command of the Lord, as He encourages us to “Buy the
truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding” (Proverbs 23:23). We should pay
attention to God’s reiteration of historical facts because God repeats historical facts for a reason.
Apart from the fact that God is repeating that the period of the children of Israel in Egypt was 430 years,
the Word of God uses three meaningful phrases in Exodus 12:41. For instance: “and it came to pass,”
meaning that the marvelous prophecy revealed by God and prophesied by Abraham 645 years earlier, had
providentially been fulfilled. The prophecy had been given to Abraham when he was commanded to
depart from Haran at the age of seventy-five years (Genesis 12:4) in the year 2021 A.M. (for reference see
the chart). And this prophecy began to be fulfilled in the year 2236 A.M. when Israel (Jacob) was 130
71
years old (Genesis 47:9). But there are some people preaching that Israel sojourned 215 years in Egypt
when the Word of God clearly states that it was 430 years. Let us reason together with the Lord.
With the phrase “at the end of the four hundred and thirty years” God refreshes our minds with the fact
that the Israelites spent a full span of 430 years in Egypt. This phrase also alludes to the original prophecy,
and it does it with the emphatic article “the” which gives the specificity that this text is connecting
Exodus 12:40 with Genesis 15:13.
God always fulfills His divine plans in His appointed time. The Exodus happened exactly on the day
when Israel was completing 430 years in their residence in Egypt. The phrase: “even the selfsame day”
gives us an indication that God wants us to pay attention to the chronological data. It shows that He is a
God of discipline and order. The Bible prophecies were fulfilled in the moment when God attended to His
appointment with us. Bear in mind that in God’s chronology, the main focus is the redemption of this
world. Therefore, the Biblical chronology must have a solid foundation in order that the Messianic
prophecies given in the Law and the Prophets might be understood as fulfilled in the exact time as God
had preordained.
The Exodus: God’s Liberation of Israel from Egypt in 2666 A.M.
How wonderful it was in the year 2666 when God brought liberation to His people Israel as “they
departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month” (Numbers 33:3). They
were liberated from their Egyptian enslavers, who under the leadership of Satan and Pharaoh, had
attempted to annihilate the last vestiges of faith in the children of Israel. But it was a dreadful year for the
enemies of God, as Satan and his hosts were defeated; their vain religion was shamefully exposed and
their wicked Egyptian nation was devastated. God brought retribution upon Egypt for having accepted
Satan’s pantheistic religion of worshiping demons. It was Satan’s plot to induce the nations against God’s
plan of salvation and God’s doctrines pertaining to the Heavenly Sanctuary. Pharaoh himself was
worshiped by the deluded Egyptians; he had taken the prerogative that only belongs to God. Therefore,
God brought ten terrible plagues that devastated Egypt’s fragile economy and their futile religion (Exodus
7:20- 11:8).
The last plague was the most devastating one. And in order for God’s people to escape the last plague
they needed to heed and obey God’s requirements. The Israelites had to sacrifice an unblemished male
lamb (Exodus 12:5), and mark their houses with the blood in three different parts of the house: in the two
side posts and on the upper door post (Exodus 12:7). They also had to eat the Passover lamb with staff in
hand, shoes on feet and loins girded (Exodus 12:11), and await God’s great deliverance. When God
revealed to His people, His plan for that solemn night, He said:
“For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt,
both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD” (Exodus
12212);
Gathering the Israelites for one of the most holy convocations in the history of the world, Moses related to
his people God’s laid-out plan of deliverance and assured them protection through the approaching night
of impending judgment. They were to heed and obey carefully, in detail, all the commands of God and to
72
go unhesitatingly and without delay and act promptly on the rest of that day and for what lay ahead for the
night. The meeting had to be held and the instructions given, on the very day of their departure. “And the
children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they”
(Exodus 12:28). The children of Israel sacrificed their Passover and fixed their faith on the Messiah, the
true Passover Lamb who saved His people from their sins.
God’s Retribution at Midnight
“And Moses said, ‘Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: And all
the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even
unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts” (Exodus 11:4-
5).
It is significant that God chose the hours around midnight to show His power and bring retribution upon
Egypt and its demonic doctrines and practices. The Egyptians regarded in high esteem the hours of
midnight in which they celebrated their pagan rituals. In paganism, the hours of midnight mark the
beginning of a new day; but this common knowledge is against the Word of God.
The God Who created time, commanded that a day begins at sunset, not at midnight as the pagan religions
teach. Therefore, from the creation day when God created the world, He began counting days beginning
with the sunset. “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Genesis 1:5). Likewise, for the
observance of the Sabbath, the day of the Lord (Genesis 2:2, Mark 2:28), the people of the Exodus
coming out of Egypt should relearn that the seventh day should be kept beginning at sunset and ending at
sunset next day. Therefore, the command was given to the emancipated Hebrew people: “... from even
unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32).
So the people of God were reminded in the year of the Exodus in 2666 that a day begins and ends at
sunset. They Israelites celebrated their ceremony in the evening (Exodus 12:6); and one and a half
millennia later, on the day of the Lord Jesus’ crucifixion, God’s people still remembered that a day, in this
case the Sabbath day, spans from sunset to sunset. The gospel reads: “And now when the even was come,
because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath” (Mark 15:42), “and the Sabbath drew
on” (Luke 23:54), “And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day
according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56). Therefore, God appointed that a day begins at sundown.
Death at midnight was therefore God’s final judgment against the Egyptian’s observance of occult times,
carnivals and wicked practices. God also commanded His people to refrain from such satanic practices as
the use of enchantments, the observance of times (Leviticus 19:26), consulting familiar spirits, seeking
the wizards (Leviticus 19:31), and making tattoos in the skin for the dead (Leviticus 19:28).
Pharaoh knew that more than one death would occur in every Egyptian house at midnight during the tenth
and final plague. That was not a normal night, it was a night of retribution, and the Egyptians had been
forewarned. Therefore, they feared the dreadful premonition until about midnight when the Lord went out
into the midst of Egypt and all the firstborn in Egypt died from the firstborn of Pharaoh to the firstborn of
the servants and beasts (Exodus 11:4,5). And all Egypt kept awake with a great mourning as never before
(Leviticus 11:6). The Word of God states:
73
“And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the
firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all
the firstborn of cattle” (Exodus 12:29).
It was midnight when in sorrowful groaning and anguished wailing all Egyptians voiced their hopeless
cry for their many dead loved ones throughout the country. The Egyptians were punished by the tenth and
last plague that visited their wickedness.
“And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great
cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead” (Exodus 12:30).
God Executes Judgment on All the Egyptian gods
God’s wrath in condemnation and repugnance against Egyptian idolatry in all its forms was revealed with
the last plague. Necromancy was the demonic custom in Egypt to conjure the spirits of the dead. This was
a country of many necromancers, the conjurers of demons through the practice of invoking the so called
spirits of the realm of death. Demonic cults and rituals to the dead were performed in Egypt. Their
wickedness had led them to adopt and give shape to devilish creatures such as Anubis the god of the dead
having a human body and a jackal head. Osiris was the Egyptian governor of the underworld of the dead.
Thus, the Egyptians had developed a strong fondness for rituals regarding death.
The Egyptians had practiced a pantheistic religion producing their own gods by the amalgamation of
human and animal creatures. Consequently, Bastet was represented as a woman with a cat’s head, Hator
was worshiped as a woman with a cow’s head, Horus was represented as a man with a hawk’s head, Isis
was depicted as a woman with a cow’s horns, Mut was a woman with the head of a vulture, Ra was
represented by a man with a hawk or a bull’s head, Sekhmet was represented by a woman with the head
of a lion, and Apis was a bull. In fact, the Egyptians had their temples to those devilish gods, but in effect
they worshiped and had great veneration for their representative animals.
Those who had a great fondness for death and the realm of the dead were visited by a terrible plague that
saw the slaughtering of all the firstborn in Egypt, those of the animals and humans. The end of an era had
begun for Egypt; their religion was in turmoil, all the Egyptian gods had been killed. Those who had
disdained the true God, against whom they had hardened their hearts, were now confused and alarmed.
Puzzled with such a great havoc they sank in hopelessness for they had come to the realization that their
religion was empty and vain. By the hundreds of thousands, their loved ones perished under the dominion
of death, and to make things worse, their gods were now dead. Could they now comprehend that they had
cherished a dead religion? Would they still cling to their demon gods who had failed to protect them?
Thus, the Egyptians’ hope was shattered; their faith had crumbled.
After the mournful night of death in Egypt, and on the following day, their day of mourning, the
Egyptians: royalty, governors, priests, armies, magicians, and commoners; all with no exception, buried
their dead in distress and sorrow. With mixed feelings of anger, anguish and hopelessness, they could not
help but bury their dead loved ones and their dead animals that they esteemed as gods. They even buried
their royal princes, some of whom would have become pharaohs themselves.
74
“For the Egyptians buried all their firstborn, which the LORD had smitten among them: upon their gods
also the LORD executed judgments” (Numbers 33:4).
Egypt’s gods: Isis, Horus and Set (IHS) were judged at this time. Their futile religion was powerless and
meaningless; their pagan representations in the form of unclean animals had been slaughtered. Now these
devils; whose names still remain in vogue today, had been judged before the eyes of human worshipers.
But when the Lord Jesus was crucified on the cross of Calvary, these same devils, and the rest of the
demons together with Satan, were judged before the eyes of God’s holy angels and the whole universe as
they contemplated our Redeemer, whose character of love had emptied Himself to become a human being
in order to save the fallen human race. Our Lord Jesus, a few hours before His execution pronounced this
sentence: “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (John 12:31).
Regarding such a terrible day of visitation for the Egyptians, Elihu had uttered the prophecy of its
impending judgment. A judgment carried out in the darkest hours of midnight, a midnight of wickedness
for the Egyptians, and midnight in actual time. They could not hide themselves from the appointed time
of judgment from God. Thus, God had opened up this mystery, even from the days of Job through the
utterance of Elihu, one of Job’s friends:
“In a moment shall they die, and the people shall be troubled at midnight, and pass away: and the mighty
shall be taken away without hand. For his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings.
There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves” (Job
34:20-22).
75
CHAPTER THREE
A SANCTUARY IN THE DESERT
“Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed: thou hast guided them in thy
strength unto thy holy habitation” (Exodus 15:13).
Sinai’s Shaking Prefigures the Heavenly Sanctuary
Rameses was the land where Joseph placed his father and his brothers as they settled down in Egypt
(Genesis 47:11). It was also from Rameses that the children of Israel departed on the day of the Exodus
(Exodus 12:37). And in the 3rd month of 2666, after the Exodus, the Lord commanded and the Hebrews
broke camp as they departed to set up camp in the wilderness of Sinai in front of the mountain (Exodus
19:1-2). On that mountain, God’s final judgment was heralded as His character was revealed when God
wrote the Ten Commandments. Such an event had an element of the judgment taking place right now in
the Heavenly Sanctuary.
We have read of the awesome experience Moses had at the reception of the Ten Commandments on
Mount Sinai, how he exceedingly feared and trembled (Hebrews 12:21). We are not coming to the earthly
Mount Sinai to meet with our God. Yet when the apostle teaches that we are to meet with God, he speaks
of the Heavenly Mount Zion, he says: “But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels” (Hebrews 12:22). Therefore, we
are summoned to appear before God, this time not on Mount Sinai but on Mount Zion, not at the earthly
sanctuary but at the Heavenly Sanctuary and we are strictly commanded:
“See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth,
much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Whose voice then
shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also
heaven” (Hebrews 12:25-26).
Why does the Word of God promise another shaking? Consider for a moment the earthquake that
happened at Mount Sinai with all its supernatural sights and sounds and how the people fled in panic.
Then, the glory of God, which made this sin-stained world shake, appeared to their natural senses to be
dreadful. But, you may ask, why is it that God is speaking of another shaking, not of the earth only but
also Heaven, and yet God speaks of it as a promise? Would God’s people be glad about the shaking of
Heaven and earth? “The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage;
and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again” (Isaiah 24:20).
When God speaks of this shaking, he is speaking about a spiritual cleansing done by the Lord Jesus in the
Most Holy Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Such a shaking refers to the remission or removal of sins
from the repentant sinner. But soon the Sanctuary in Heaven will be shaken for the reason of cleansing it
from the stain of sin. Let us continue the reading:
76
“And this word, yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that
are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain” (Hebrews 12:27).
At the present, we have a High Priest; the Lord Jesus, in the Most Holy Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary
(Hebrews 8:1-2; Hebrews 9:24; Hebrews 10:19). Moreover, here on earth we beseech Him to remove our
sins and our sinful traits that stain our character. Those sins are removed from us when we repent and ask
for forgiveness as we ask our High Priest Jesus: “Remove from me the way of lying: and grant me thy
law graciously” (Psalms 119:29). Accordingly, we approach the Heavenly Sanctuary with the claim:
“Remove from me reproach and contempt; for I have kept thy testimonies” (Psalms 119:22).
Thus, as I confess my sins to God, they are removed from me and I become clean by the blood of the
Lord Jesus (Hebrews 13:12. In this time of probation, let us plead with God with this acknowledgment:
“Iniquities prevail against me: as for our transgressions, thou shalt purge them away” (Psalms 65:3). Then
we grasp God’s grace and plead for His deliverance from sins: “Help us, O God of our salvation, for the
glory of thy name: and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name's sake” (Psalms 79:9).
But our forgiven sins are not automatically erased. Our Lord Jesus bears our iniquities as it is written, “So
Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” (Hebrews 9:28). However, the glorious day is soon
approaching when Heaven will be shaken and those sins which have been removed from the repentant
sinners will also be removed from Heaven. So Heaven itself will be cleansed from the stain of sin.
The Word of God also teaches that in the shaking of Heaven there are some things which cannot be
removed nor shaken (Hebrews 12:27). For instance, God’s will cannot be shaken and therefore not
removed; remember our Lord Jesus when he prayed: “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me:
nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). Repentant and forgiven sinners will not have
their names removed from the book in Heaven, yet that warning is given by the Lord: “I will remove thy
candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” (Revelation 2:5). Therefore, as the Lord Jesus’ offer of
salvation is still available and the door of mercy is still open, we can claim His promises and tell Him:
“Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy
tender mercies blot out my transgressions” (Psalms 51:1). However, one thing we do not want to be
blotted out at the coming shaking of the Heavenly Sanctuary is our names from the book of life. Let us
take hold of the promise: “He that overcometh... I will not blot out his name out of the book of life...”
(Revelation 3:5).
The Code of God’s Judgment
It was an awesome view for the people of Israel looking at Mount Sinai as it “was altogether on a smoke,
because the Lord descended upon it in fire” (Exodus 19:18). What happened on Mount Sinai was repeated
in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost as the Holy Spirit in both events descended in the form of fire. The
promise was received by the church as the Lord Jesus had “...commanded them that they should not
depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father...” (Acts 1:4). Such a promise was received
“when the day of Pentecost was fully come...” (Acts 2:1). At that time “there appeared unto them cloven
tongues like as of fire. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:3-4).
77
On Mount Sinai, the Lord had descended in fire when God gave Moses “two tables of testimony, tables of
stone, written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18). How do we know that it was the Holy Spirit that
wrote the Ten Commandments in two tablets of stone? Paul elucidates this point by stating that we are the
epistle of Christ... “Written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but
in fleshly tables of the heart” (2 Corinthians 3:3).
The act of abolishing or changing the Ten Commandments written by the Holy Spirit is blasphemy
against God. The Lord Jesus made it clear when He said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17). No wonder the Holy Scriptures speak
about the Ten Commandments written on Mount Sinai as being permanent and immutable:
“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said,
do not commit adultery, said also, do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art
become a transgressor of the law” (James 2:10-11).
It is the Law of God, the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20:1-17, by which God will judge the world.
Therefore, the Word of God catches our attention with the words: “So speak ye, and so do, as they that
shall be judged by the law of liberty” (James 2:12). This world has no justice; the princes of this world
have introduced a different kind of law called human rights by which they foster and protect the practices
of Sodom and Gomorrah. Isaiah prophesied of God’s holy people when he said: “Except the LORD of
hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like
unto Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:9). The world has a war against God’s remnant specifically because they obey
God’s Law rather than human rights as established by humanism. But let the Word of God explain this
war: “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed,
which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 12:17).
Against the powers of darkness of this world we have to speak loudly and clearly, just like Peter and Paul
presented a response: “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God,
judge ye” (Acts 4:19).
The war began in Heaven by the renegade Lucifer. This cosmic war was against the Law of God. The war
continues on earth, and likewise it is against the Law of the Creator. The war will be ended by God when
He will finish the judgment by his holy Law (James 2:12). The book of Revelation presents another view
of this judgment:
“And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and
True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war” Revelation 19:11.
This will be explained in detail in a later chapter. However, notice a foretaste of what is going on as
judgment continues in the Heavenly Sanctuary as war is presently being waged against the Law of God
here on earth. In both instances, Heaven is opened:
“And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament:
and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail” (Revelation
11:19).
78
Idolatry in the Foothills of Mount Sinai in 2666 A.M.
Satan’s hatred towards the Hebrews was intensified because of God’s favor and protection for them. That
old serpent was enraged and looking for an opportunity to destroy the people of God. Therefore, in 2666
he incited the children of Israel to prevaricate from the truth and celebrate an idolatrous worship. First,
they made “a molten calf’ (Exodus 32:4) and then they worshiped it (Exodus 32:8). Having made a false
god, they silenced their conscience and convinced themselves that their liberation and protection was due
to the idol of their own hands. They gave honor and glory to that thing, saying: “These be thy gods, Oh
Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt” (Exodus 32:4). Their conscience was so lulled that
in their anxiety they entrusted their souls for their salvation and forgiveness of sins to that golden calf.
Having been duped and wrongfully believing that they could achieve atonement for sins from an
invention of their own making, they pushed Aaron to “built an altar” in front of the calf (Exodus 32:25).
Having completely seared their consciences, the people fell into the trap of idolatry as they tried to work
their own salvation and they confessed their sins to an idol and “offered burnt offerings, and brought
peace offerings (Exodus 32:6).
Moreover, “the people sat down to eat and to drink” (Exodus 32:6). But such eating and drinking was not
the customary daily eating; they were eating and drinking food sacrificed to an Egyptian god; their feast
was the flesh of the animals that represented Apis, an Egyptian god believed to be the reincarnation of
Osiris, the sun god. The Hebrews had sacrificed unawares to the sun god in the hope of receiving
forgiveness for their sins from The Almighty God, Whom they had represented by the abomination of the
Egyptians in the form of a calf.
You may ponder at Moses’ action and even question why, in his indignation for the gravity of Israel’s sin,
he “took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire and ground it to powder, and strawed it
upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it” (Exodus 32: 20). There is a reason behind
Moses’ action. He gave them to drink the god of their making as an object lesson of harsh rebuke so that
Israel should come to their senses and learn that there is no virtue in that abomination. The children of
Israel prevaricated from the truth and did in accordance with the Egyptians’ traditions. They ate and drank
to the honor of their god, after offering sacrifices in accordance with the Osirian sacrament. This was the
doctrine that the virtues and powers of the eaten can be thus absorbed by the eater. Although crude, this
was a core concept, the conviction that one could receive immortality by eating the flesh and blood of a
god who had died.
The Day of Atonement Prefigured the Judgment Day
On the Day of Atonement, the high priest alone went into the Most Holy Place in the earthly sanctuary
“within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark...” (Leviticus 16:2). Aaron and every
subsequent high priest should offer a bullock for his sins and for the sins of his house (Leviticus 16:6),
and its blood he should sprinkle seven times with his finger upon the mercy seat, in the Most Holy Place
(Leviticus 16:14). Moreover, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest should “take of the congregation
of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering...” (Leviticus 16:5). He was to “take the
two goats, and present them before the Lord...” (Leviticus 16:7). The high priest should then cast lots on
the two goats “one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat” (Leviticus 16:8). The goat for
the Lord was sacrificed by the high priest himself, as a sin offering (Leviticus 16:9). This goat was
79
sacrificed for the sins of the people (Leviticus 16:10) and its blood was brought into the Most Holy Place
in the sanctuary; that is “within the veil” and sprinkled upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat
(Leviticus 16:15). That was how the high priest made “an atonement for the Holy Place, because of the
uncleanness of the children of Israel” (Leviticus 16:16). Symbolically, all the sins of the children of Israel
were brought to remembrance on that day and were to be eradicated from the presence of the sanctuary.
But a sacrifice was to be made in order to “make atonement in the Holy Place” (Leviticus 16:17). And
“until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household and for the
congregation of Israel” (Leviticus 16:17), when he had reconciled the Holy Place, the tabernacle of
congregation and the altar (Leviticus 16:20) only then could the high priest bring the live goat (Leviticus
16:20).
Notice that the atonement was made with the sacrificed goat and it was sacrificed for the sins of the
people. Now, what about the scapegoat? This goat, the Lord had commanded: “shall bear upon him all
their iniquities unto a land not inhabited” (Leviticus 16:22). That goat was to be presented alive before the
Lord, to make an atonement with him and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness” (Leviticus
16:10).
“And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities
of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the
goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:21).
Of the two goats presented on the Day of Atonement, one paid the penalty of our sins; the sacrificed goat
represented the Lord Jesus Who redeemed us from the penalty of death. The scapegoat represents the real
culprit for the problem of sin, Satan (I John 3:8), who has been judged (John 12:31) and found guilty of
the sins of the world.
Thus, coming out of Egypt, the people of Israel received a major token of God’s revelation of His plan of
redemption. To Moses, it was revealed the essence of the Heavenly Sanctuary message through the
atonement. To him, it was revealed the truth about judgment and the eradication of sin by God. But to
Daniel, it was revealed the exact date when the Messiah, the Son of God, would make atonement for the
sins of the world. To Daniel, it was also revealed when the Sanctuary in Heaven would be cleansed
(Daniel 8:14). We will study this later.
The Heavenly Sanctuary Shown to Moses
Notice that it was on Mount Sinai that God showed Moses the city of the living God: Mount Zion. God
purposed that His people make an earthly tabernacle according to the similitude of the Heavenly
Tabernacle (Hebrews 8:5). After viewing the magnificence of the Heavenly Sanctuary, Moses received
God’s command:
“And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. According to all that I show thee, after
the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it”
(Exodus 25:8-9).
80
The first covenant consisted in the making of the earthly sanctuary in accordance with the pattern in
Heaven, which was designed to represent God’s plan of salvation (Hebrews 9:1). Such a “covenant had
ordinances of divine service”, and also had an earthly sanctuary (Hebrews 9:1).
The earthly tabernacle was built with two compartments; “the first, wherein was the candlestick and the
table and the showbread; which was called the sanctuary” (Hebrews 9:2). Into that first compartment is
where the priests went continually, that is, daily (Hebrews 9:6). The second compartment “is called the
Holiest of all” (Hebrews 9:3), which had the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrews 9:4) and the mercy seat
(Hebrews 9:5). “But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which
he offered for himself and for the errors of his people” (Hebrews 9:7).
On the day of His ascension, our Lord Jesus went into the Holy Place; that is, the first compartment of the
Heavenly Sanctuary as represented by the daily ministration of the earthly priests. “The Holy Ghost this
signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was
yet standing” (Hebrews 9:8). Jesus offered His own blood once and for all, “by his own blood he entered
in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews 9:12). You will see in
the final chapter of this book that when 6000 years in the chronology of the world had elapsed the Lord
Jesus began His ministry in the Most Holy Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary, as it is written: “...But now
once in the end of the world hath he ministered to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews
9:26). We will also see that such a ministry is what was revealed to Daniel regarding the cleansing of the
sanctuary, as it is written: “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding
of blood is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22). Notice that on the cross the Lord Jesus paid for the penalty of
sin, but at the time of the end He ministers in the Most Holy Place (Hebrews 9:24; Hebrews 10:19) to put
an end to sin (Hebrews 9:28). Such putting away of sin was represented by the ceremonial Sabbath of the
Day of Atonement, such event represented the time of judgment which was to take place in the Most Holy
Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary when the investigative judgment should begin. The Day of Atonement
was therefore a miniature form of the judgment in Heaven which precedes the second coming of the
Majesty of Heaven, as it is written: “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that
look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Hebrews 9:28).
The Day when Moses Smote the Rock
As Israel camped in Rephidim, they found no water to drink (Exodus 17:1). There in Rephidim is where
Moses smote the rock in Horeb and water came out of it as the Lord stood on the rock (Exodus 17:6). At
that time the Lord had commanded Moses to smite the rock but it was the Lord who was standing on that
rock; symbol of the true Rock. Let us read from the primary source:
“And the LORD said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and
thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go. Behold, I will stand before thee
there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the
people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel” (Exodus 17:5-6).
On the occasion when the people of Israel camped in Kadesh in the desert of Zin (Numbers 20:1) “And
there was no water for the congregation: and they gathered themselves together against Moses and against
Aaron” (Numbers 20:2). Then the Lord gave explicit directions to Moses as to what to do. God wanted to
81
give them water once again, just like the water that God gives is “water springing up into everlasting life”
(John 4:14). This time Moses was not meant to smite the rock at all, because he had done that once in
another desert on another rock. This time the Lord told Moses:
“Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the
rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the
rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink” (Numbers 20:8).
Nonetheless, Moses did not give glory to God but said “Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out
of this rock?” (Numbers 20:10) and he smote the rock twice (Numbers 20:11). And because of his
unbelief, Moses was punished by not having the privilege to enter Canaan with his people Israel
(Numbers 20: 12).
Part of his unbelief was that Moses smote the rock twice, that rock was a symbol of Jesus Christ, as it is
written: “they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians
10:4). The Word of God presents the Lord Jesus not only as that Rock but as God, “For who is God, save
the LORD? And who is a rock, save our God?” (2 Sam. 22:32; Psalms 18:31). Having smitten the rock
twice, Moses did not honor God by illustrating differently, that the Rock of our salvation was going to be
offered once not twice (Hebrews 7:27; Hebrews 9:28).
Moses did not spoil the plan of salvation but he failed for an instant to acknowledge that salvation is
through grace and not by works. The Rock of our salvation was smitten of God and not of men as the
prophet Isaiah wrote: “Yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted” (Isaiah 53:4).
Moses’ Last Message in 2706 A.M.
Five months prior to Moses’ last speech, Aaron died on mount Hor in the 40" year after the Israelites
came out of Egypt, (Numbers 33:38), he was 123 years of age when he died (Numbers 33:39). Aaron died
just after the incident of the fiery serpents that struck and bit the Israelites and many died (Numbers 21:6).
There the Lord commanded Moses to make a serpent of brass and set it on a pole so that anybody who
had been bitten of serpents should lift up their eyes and behold the serpent of brass and live (Numbers
21:9). Did the brass serpent have any special virtue? None at all, but it was for Israel to put their trust in
the Lord. It was also to tell the world that salvation comes from God, as the world has been bitten by the
venomous old serpent and suffers from the poisonous effects of sin. The Lord Jesus spoke about his death
as He was to be lifted up on a cross. He said:
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:14-15).
As the final day approached for their last stay in the wilderness, the children of Israel journeyed from the
mountains of Abarim in front of Mount Nebo (Numbers 33:47) and camped by Jordan in the plains of
Moab near Jericho (Numbers 33:48). Here God commanded Moses to encourage the people of Israel that
when they shall cross the Jordan into Canaan they must displace the inhabitants of the land, destroy all
their pictures and all their molten images, and pull down all their high places (Numbers 33:50-52).
82
On the occasion of his last speech when Moses addressed the nation on the east side of Jordan
(Deuteronomy 1:1); on the very day when he was 120 years old, he declared to the Hebrew nation that he
could not go over this Jordan (Deuteronomy 31:2). Moses revealed another important chronological fact.
On the day of his last speech, he not only disclosed his age, 120 years, but also made known the date in
which he addressed the Israelites: “And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the
first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the LORD had
given him in commandment unto them” (Deuteronomy 1:3). So, here was the great leader on the day of
the anniversary of his birth, on the 1“ day in the eleventh month in 2706 A.M.
Moses’ Burial in 2706 A.M.
As Moses concluded his last discourse to Israel (Deuteronomy 32:45), he spoke of commanding their
children ‘to observe all the words of this law’ (Deuteronomy 32:46), so that when they should cross over
the Jordan, they would prolong their lives (Deuteronomy 32:47). Then, in solemn obedience Moses
directed his steps towards his final resting place; because as soon as he ended his speech, the Lord
commanded Moses, on that very day (Deuteronomy 32:48) to walk up the mountain Abarim in Mount
Nebo facing Jericho and to behold the promised land of Canaan (Deuteronomy 32:49). After that, he
would die there on the mountain, just as Aaron his brother died on Mount Hor (Deuteronomy 32:50).
Lastly, God reminded him the reason for his death; it was because he trespassed against the Lord among
the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah-Kadesh (Deuteronomy 32:51).
On so many occasions, the Israelites premeditated Moses’ murder, but he incessantly pleaded with God in
intercession for them. On his last day, he demonstrated once again his love for them. ‘Moses, the man of
God,’ as he was called, “blessed the children of Israel before his death’ (Deuteronomy 33:1).
Moses’ burial was not attended by any human being, as God did not allow mortals to accompany this holy
man of God in his death. The Lord Himself “buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, in front of
Bethpeor: but no man knows of his sepulcher up to this day” (Deuteronomy 34:6). Oh but what an honor
for a human being to be buried by the Creator! And his burial was certainly not altogether solitary, for
where God moves, there goes the millions of angels with Him. Therefore, Moses understood that his own
funeral would be attended by ten thousands of holy angels, so he told Israel in his last speech:
“And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount
Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them”
(Deuteronomy 33:2).
Meanwhile, the children of Israel mourned and wept for Moses for a period of thirty days in the plains of
Moab (Deuteronomy 34:8). That was exactly one month before the forty-year wilderness prophecy would
be fulfilled. Moses died on the day of his birth date. Had Moses needed an epitaph for a tombstone, a
perfect one for this man of God who worked tirelessly for the salvation of his people would have been:
“The friend of God” (James 2:23; Isaiah 41:8)
83
CHAPTER FOUR
ISRAEL: GOVERNANCE OF THE JUDGES
“And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived
Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD that he did for Israel” Judges 2:7.
Chart of the Chronology of the Judges' Period
JACOB 130 TO EGYPT Genesis 47:9 2236
years
Israel's 430 THE EXODUS Exodus 12:40-41 2666
Slavery years
ISRAEL 40 Wilderness Acts 13:18 2706
years
JUDGES 450 Joshua to Samuel Acts 13:20 3156
years
Samuel and Both died in the same 3156
Saul year
Joshua: Israel’s First Judge
Joshua was God’s chosen leader in Israel who began the period of the judges in the year 2706. The Lord
addressed His new servant with the words: “My servant Moses is dead, now arise and cross over the
River Jordan with this people” (Joshua 1:2). God in His wisdom had chosen Moses’ successor for the
guidance of His people. Even from the time of the wilderness, the election had been made. Of Joshua, it
was prophesied that he should not see death until he and his fellow compatriot Caleb would settle down in
the Promised Land. Joshua had learned loyalty to duty and obedience to commands. He was Moses’
minister who alone with Moses ascended to the mount of God on the occasion when they spent forty days
in Sinai for the reception of the Commandments of God (Exodus 24:13). On the day of Joshua’s
succession his title was given: Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ minister (Joshua 1:1).
When the children of Israel were expecting judgment from God due to their sin at Sinai with the incident
of the molten calf, Moses and Joshua are seen in the Tabernacle interceding for the people. Moses speaks
84
face to face with the Lord and returned to the camp (Exodus 33:11), while Joshua remained in the
tabernacle (Exodus 33:11). This passage tells a lot about the training for leadership that Joshua received
from Moses. Such data is important because Moses had previously been asking God about Israel’s future
leadership. Moses had been anxious to know if he would lead Israel into Canaan or not. He said to the
Lord: “thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me” (Exodus 33:12). And when on Sinai
Moses requested to see God’s glory, the truth was revealed to Moses. The Lord replied: “My presence
shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest” (Exodus 33:14).
Moses died at the end of the year 2706 one month prior to the end of Israel’s 40 year wilderness journey.
The Hebrew nation had been mourning the death of their beloved leader in the plains of Moab
(Deuteronomy 34:8). As the new year 2707 dawned, the people of Israel camped on the east side of
Jordan (Numbers 22:1) expecting to march onwards to Canaan under God’s leadership Joshua, who was
endowed with the spirit of wisdom, as Moses had laid his hands on him (Deuteronomy 34:9).
The Gilgal Passover in 2707 A.M.
God commanded Joshua to circumcise the children of Israel (Joshua 5:2) when they crossed the Jordan on
the 10" of the 1“ month (Joshua 4:19) of 2707. The reason for this circumcision was that all the
circumcised men of war who came out of Egypt had died in the wilderness (Joshua 5:4). This
circumcision was for all the children that were born in the desert who had not been circumcised yet
(Joshua 5:5). The name of the place was called Gilgal because the Lord said: “This day have I rolled away
the reproach of Egypt from off you” (Joshua 5:9).
Now the children of Israel were sanctified. They also celebrated their first Passover in Canaan on the 14"
day of the first month at evening in the plains of Jericho (Josh 4:19; 5:10). On the next day, they ate of the
old corn of the land unleavened cakes (Joshua 5:11). And the manna, the bread from heaven, ceased the
day after they had eaten of the old corn of the land (Joshua 5: 12).
Joshua’s Last Speech in Shechem
It was in Shechem where Joshua delivered his final speech. Joshua had lived a life of service and loyalty
to God’s commandments. Like Moses, Joshua obeyed direct orders from God, and so he commanded the
children of Israel. Therefore, in his final address to Israel, he repeated their history of how God
established Israel as a nation and rescued her from idolatry even from ancient times when Terah
prevaricated from the truth and “served other gods” (Joshua 24:2), and how God called Abraham and
established him in Canaan (Joshua 24:3). Joshua died at the age of 110 years (Joshua 24:29). He was a
warrior against idolatry and a true defender of the sanctuary message. Before his death, he encouraged
Israel to worship the true God:
“And if it seems evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the
gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in
whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).
85
Samuel: Israel’s Last Judge
God’s final judge for the people of Israel was Samuel. Unlike other judges, “Samuel judged Israel all the
days of his life” (1 Sam. 7:15). He was consecrated to the Lord long before his conception by Hannah his
mother (1 Sam. 1:5). Hanna fulfilled her vow when God granted her petition. She had promised that if
God would give her “a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life” (1 Sam.
1:11). Hanna had pledged Samuel to be a servant of God forever, she said: “I will bring him, that he may
appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever” (1 Sam. 1:22). Therefore the little child, girded with a
linen ephod (1 Sam. 2:18), ministered to the Lord before Eli the priest (1 Sam. 2:11).
Little Samuel grew up serving as a priest, yet in his early childhood years, the Lord called him to be a
prophet as well. One day when Eli the priest and little Samuel had gone to sleep, the boy Samuel heard
the voice of God calling him four times (1 Sam. 3:4, 6, 8, and 10). On that night, Samuel received his first
vision. God revealed to him the judgment against Eli’s house (1 Sam. 3:14). With this vision, Samuel
began his prophetic ministry. “And all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was
established to be a prophet of the LORD” (1 Sam. 3:20).
But Samuel was not only a prophet and priest; he was Israel’s last judge. Samuel did his yearly rounds
judging Israel from place to place in Bethel, Gilgal and Mizpeh (1 Sam. 7:16). Then he would return to
his own house in Ramah where he also judged Israel (1 Sam. 7:17).
One day a prophet of God visited Eli and revealed to him God’s judgment to fall on his house because of
the wickedness of his children the priests (1 Sam. 2:27). In his admonition, this anonymous prophet also
revealed to Eli that God would establish a faithful priest in Israel. Speaking about Samuel, he declared,
thus saith the Lord:
“And I will raise me up a faithful priest that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my
mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever” (1 Sam. 2:35).
Amazingly, this prophet revealed that Samuel would live and minister during the whole reign of King
Saul — (God’s anointed).
Israel Requests to Have a King in 3116 A.M.
It was in the year 3116 when the elders of Israel requested Samuel to establish a monarchy by giving
them a king. Moreover, they belittled Samuel’s capability of judging and said to him: “behold thou art old”
(1 Sam. 8:5). Despite Samuel’s advanced age, he judged Israel all the days of his life. King Saul trembled
at his command and sought his advice all the days of Samuel’s life.
Israel’s request to have a king was a desire to conform to the world’s standards for governance. It was an
emotional and blatant request by the children of Israel; they did not want to remain different to the rest of
the world’s nations; they wanted to unite with the world. Consequently, they drifted away from God and
headed towards a system of worldliness that led them to despise the government of God. They embraced
the customs of other nations and idolatrous practices made their inroads into Israel’s religious and civil
systems. Capriciously they went ahead with their demand, not reckoning the dire effects that such a move
would bring on their children’s faith. They were resolved to be united with the world, following the
world’s traditions (1 Sam. 8:19).
86
When the children of Israel asked for a king, they not only ascribed to Samuel the tag of ‘old man’ but
they revealed their real thought; they said, “make us a king to judge us like all the nations” (1 Sam. 8:5).
They wanted to have young men and even children ruling them, just like the other nations who had
juvenile monarchs enthroned at the time of their father’s death. Samuel warned them that under a king
their children would be recruited and drafted into the army as “instruments of war” (1 Sam.8:12), he
would take their fields and vineyards (1 Sam. 8:14) and would tax them severely (1 Sam. 8:15). Yet the
children of Israel refused counsel, they responded: “nay but we will have a king over us; that we also may
be like all the nations; and our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles” (1 Sam.
8:19-20). On that day, the children of Israel rejected not just Samuel, but God (1 Sam. 8:7).
How is it that Samuel, ‘an old man,’ had so much power in Israel? Saul had little power in comparison to
Samuel. When Nahash the Ammonite came against the men of Jabesh (1 Sam. 11:1), the men complained
to the king of Israel, but notice Saul’s response: “he took a yoke of oxen, and hewed them in pieces, and
sent them throughout all the coasts of Israel by the hands of messengers, saying, Whosoever cometh not
forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen...” (1 Sam. 11:7). The Word of God
says that “the fear of the LORD fell on the people, and they came out with one consent” (1 Sam. 11:7).
Then Samuel summoned Israel to Gilgal to consolidate the kingdom of Saul there (1 Sam. 11:14).
Thunderstorm: a Sign of God’s Displeasure
In Gilgal, Samuel reiterated Israel’s wickedness and rebuked them harshly for requesting a king (1 Sam.
12:17). Moreover, he called on the Lord, Who sent a lightning storm, “and all the people greatly feared
the Lord and Samuel” (1 Sam. 12:18). So the people feared that ‘old man’ whose power was from the
Lord “And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the LORD thy God, that we die not:
for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king” (1 Sam. 12:19). But Samuel who was their
judge, prophet and priest proved his intercessory ministry when he told them: “Moreover as for me, God
forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the
right way” (1 Sam. 12:23).
Saul had only reigned one year (1 Sam.13:1), and in his second year he made the mistake of usurping his
son Jonathan’s due honor when Jonathan defeated a garrison of the Philistines (1 Sam. 13:3). Saul made it
public in Israel that it had been him who defeated the enemy (1 Sam. 13:3-4). However, the greatest sin
that Saul committed was that of sacrificing a burnt offering to the Lord in order to lift His spirit when the
Philistines assailed them and Samuel was not there to offer the sacrifice.
The people were scattered, and Samuel was not there to direct them. The last judge of Israel “tarried
seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed” (1 Sam. 13:8), yet the people were
impatient and started deserting Saul (1 Sam. 13:8). Then Saul thought to lift the spirits of his people by
usurping the prerogatives of a priest. He had seen Samuel ministering as a judge and also as a priest, and
he believed he could do the same. Saul committed the grave error of offering burnt offerings and peace
offerings (1 Sam. 13:9), something that was strictly forbidden for anybody except for the priests.
Having learned about Saul’s terrible mistake, the judge Samuel used the same wording of the Lord when
he brought judgment on Adam and Eve; he asked Saul, “What hast thou done?” (1 Sam.13:11). By
interrogating Saul in this way, he directed the king to confess his sin and not to argue by excusing himself.
87
Then Saul showed his flaws and started complaining and answering the wrong question. Samuel did not
ask him for excuses, but Saul responded: “...Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and
that thou camest not within the days appointed...” (1 Sam. 13:11). Then he says: “I forced myself and
offered a burnt offering” (1 Sam. 13:12).
Samuel did not judge the king’s person but his character. He attacked his behavior by telling him, “Thou
hast done foolishly.” He further told him “thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God” (1
Sam. 13:13). Once again Samuel showed true leadership and true judgment, even when he was judging a
leader of Israel by pronouncing the Lord’s judgment: “for now would the Lord have established thy
kingdom upon Israel for ever but now thy kingdom shall not continue; the Lord hath sought him a man
after his own heart” (1 Sam. 13:13-14).
David: A King After God’s Own Heart
It was from the beginning of Saul’s reign that the Lord had chosen David to be king. On the day when
Saul disobeyed God’s Word, the Lord said: “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king” (1 Sam.
15:11). Saul failed to fulfill one of God’s prophecies and direct commands about the obliteration of
Amalek. So grievous was the violation that Samuel did not sleep all night for the anguish in his heart (1
Sam. 15:11).
Once again, Judge Samuel rebuked King Saul and revealed to him that because he had rejected the Word
of the Lord, God had also rejected him from being king (1 Sam. 15:23). The wretched king asked Samuel
to excuse his fault, that the people made him feel afraid (1 Sam. 15:24). On that day, Samuel revealed to
Saul that his monarchy had come to an end. He said: “The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from
thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou” (1 Sam. 15:28).
Even more amazing is that an old judge had more power, energy and zeal for God than the king. Samuel
commanded the soldiers to bring King Agag, who came very politely thinking that the threat of death was
over (1 Sam. 15:32). Then Samuel with all his authority passed and executed judgment on Agag as he
said to him: “as thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women.
And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal” (1 Sam. 15:33). Even after that, Saul
pleaded with Samuel to return with him to worship the Lord together (1 Sam. 15:25), Samuel did not
accede to his entreaty and went to his house in Ramah (1 Sam. 15:34). Of Samuel, it is written that he
“came no more to see Saul until the day of his death” (1 Sam. 15:35).
Samuel mourned for Saul’s kingship as one mourns a deceased person. Yet the Lord reproved him for
doing so, given that the Lord had rejected Saul from reigning over Israel (1 Sam. 16:1). Moreover, God
commanded him to fill his horn with oil and go to Bethlehem and anoint the man that God had chosen to
be Israel’s next king (1 Sam. 16:1,4). Therefore, Samuel anointed David “and the Spirit of the Lord came
upon David from that day forward” (1 Sam. 16:13). But in the meantime, the Spirit of the Lord departed
from Saul (1 Sam. 16:14). From that day on, Israel had a new king, but that knowledge had been hidden
from Israel.
From the day, when the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, an evil spirit troubled him (1 Sam. 16:14).
Saul sunk further into wickedness, harbouring increasing envy against David to the point that one day
88
when the people acclaimed David hero over tens of thousands, he said of David: “what can he have more
but the kingdom?” (1 Sam. 18:8). David’s life was in danger. Saul tried to spear him to the wall with a
javelin (1 Sam. 19:10); he also wanted to kill David in his bed (1 Sam. 19:15). So David escaped and
went to live with the Judge Samuel (1 Sam. 19:18). Yet again, Saul kept David on the run so that he fled
as a fugitive from place to place even to the heathen land of Gath (1 Sam. 21:10). The merciless king Saul
killed eighty five priests of the Lord just because one of them received David in his house (1 Sam. 22:18).
Samuel Ends Period of the Judges in 3156 A.M.
Although Saul was reigning together with Samuel, Saul’s reign does not count when gathering all the data
for the biblical chronology. In the year 3156 the period of the Judges of Israel came to a close with the
death of the prophet Samuel. About Israel’s last judge it is said: “And Samuel judged Israel all the days of
his life” (1 Sam. 7:15).
Therefore, the period of the judges, which began with Joshua and spanned 450 years was over when
Samuel died. The Word of God states: “And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four
hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet” (Acts 13:20).
Samuel died around the time King Saul committed suicide after consulting the witch of Endor. Then all
Israel came to mourn and bury the last judge of Israel in his city Ramah (1 Sam. 28:3).
When Samuel died “Saul put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land” (1 Sam.
28:3). But as soon as the Philistines arrayed themselves for battle against Israel, Saul “was afraid, and his
heart greatly trembled” (1 Sam. 28:5). Remember that the Lord had departed from Saul. The king banned
all the witches from his country because of personal convenience. Saul did not repent from his
wickedness; he only sought the protection of the Lord. But “when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord
answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets” (1 Sam. 28:6). So when Samuel died,
Saul attempted to make ‘the spirit? of Samuel return from the dead at all costs. He even consulted a
woman who had a familiar spirit (1 Sam. 28:7). Saul was deceived with the idea that it is the spirit of a
dead person who communicates with the living. But notice what happened to Saul for doing that
consultation:
“So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the
LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it” (1
Chronicles 10:13).
89
CHAPTER FIVE
THE ANCIENT WORLD FROM 1400 to 586 B.C.
Introduction
The historical period discussed in this chapter began about 1400 B.C., when Israel invaded western
Palestine under the leadership of Joshua, and closed with the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. The
beginning of this period coincides with the beginning of the decline of Egyptian power in Asia. The
strongest power in the north was that of the Hittite kingdom. This, however, disappeared under the
onslaught of the Sea Peoples two centuries later. Afterward the Assyrians came to the forefront and by
brute force formed an empire that eventually reached from the highlands of Iran to the southern border of
the Egypt. Babylonia, which during all this time existed only as a shadow of its former illustrious self,
finally threw off the shackles of the Assyrian yoke and took its place once more as a short-lived but
glorious empire.
An understanding of the history of these and other nations is essential to a correct understanding of the
ancient history of the people of God, who struggled for their existence among various local nations in
Palestine first under tribal leaders, the judges, then under kings, who were able to build a respectable
kingdom and hold it together for a little more than a century. This, however, broke up into two rival
kingdoms, each of which was too weak to withstand the forces pressing for control over Palestine, the
vital land bridge between the two most important regions and civilizations of antiquity, Egypt and
Mesopotamia. The northern kingdom of Israel was finally swallowed up by the Assyrians and completely
disappeared from history after the destruction of Samaria in 722 B.C. The southern kingdom of Judah
held out for almost another century and a half, but finally succumbed to the Babylonians. However, the
religious vigor of the Jews preserved their national unity even in exile, with the result that Judah emerged
from captivity a strong and united people.
The purpose of this chapter is to study the historical background of this most important and interesting
period; to view the rise, decline, and fall of kingdoms and empires; and to observe how the people of God
were influenced by the events, cultures, and civilizations of their time. Also, a brief survey of the history
of the people of Israel is presented, first, divided into tribal organizations under the leadership of judges,
later as a united body under three successive kings, and finally as two separate and rival kingdoms.
Since the Bible writers who have provided the bulk of available source material for a reconstruction of the
history of Israel were its religious leaders and reformers, they viewed the history of Israel in the light of
the people’s obedience or disobedience to God, and recorded it as such. This is the reason that for some
periods, when the people went through special crises or possessed outstanding leaders, our sources are
plentiful, whereas for others they are pitifully meager, and leave great gaps that our present knowledge is
as yet unable to bridge. The reader must therefore be aware that a historical sketch of the people of God in
the times of the Old Testament is sketchy in some parts and well rounded in others.
90
The same is also true in regard to the history of the other ancient nations, all periods of which are not
equally well covered by reliable source material. In some cases, the events of centuries are not yet known.
The discovery of more original source material must be awaited before a reconstruction of ancient history
in all its aspects becomes possible. The following survey represents the present state of knowledge, based
(1) for the greater part on documentary evidence that has become available since the ancient languages
written in various hieroglyphic or cuneiform scripts were resurrected, in the early 19" century, and (2) on
the wealth of material preserved by the sand and debris of centuries and in recent decades brought to light
by the scape of the excavator.
Egypt From the Amarna Age to the End of the Twentieth Dynasty (1400 B.C.—
1085 B.C.)
Chronology of the Period - Although an unassailable chronology of Egypt prior to about 660 B.C. has
not yet been established, with the exception of that pertaining to the Twelfth Dynasty, our dates for the
empire period—dynasties Eighteen to Twenty—are approximately correct. Slight variations in the dates
given by various historians and chronologers are found, but are never greater than a few years. In fact, the
chronology of this period has hardly been changed since it was established during the last century—in
contrast with the chronology of all previous periods, which has been decreased by centuries for some
periods and by millenniums for others.
It is not possible to enter into the intricate problems of ancient chronology here, and it may suffice to state
that the dates of the empire period of Egypt are based on astronomical texts dated to the reigns of certain
kings, on historical, dated records extant from that time, and on lists of kings from various sources. The
dates presented in this section are thus based on all available source material, and cannot be off by more
than a few years from the true dates. The margin of error is certainly not greater than 25 years, and is
probably smaller than 10 years. The given dates can therefore be considered as relatively correct and are
presented as such.
Egypt in the Amarna Age (Eighteenth Dynasty) - Moses witnessed the rise of Egypt to become the
strongest political power of his time. During his life, the empire established by Thutmose III reached from
the border of the Abyssinian highlands in the south to the river Euphrates in the north. The wealth of the
Asia and Africa poured into the Nile country, where temples like those of Karnak, Luxor, Deir el-Bahri,
and others were erected, so colossal that they have withstood the destructive power of both man and
nature for millenniums, and have been the marvel of many generations of visitors.
When Israel was in the desert, from about 1445 to 1045 B.C., the Egyptian Empire was held together by
the strong and ruthless hands of Amenhotep II (C. 1450-1425 B.C.) and of his son Thutmose IV (C. 1425-
1412 B.C.). With the next king, Amenhotep III (C. 375 B.C.), a man came to the throne who enjoyed the
full fruits of the empire his fathers had built, without expending much effort himself to hold it together.
He had been a great hunter in early life and had led one military campaign to Nubia, but lived thereafter
in magnificent luxury and leisure and spent his last days as a fat weakling with decayed teeth, as the
abscesses in his mummy show. He married Tiy, who, as the daughter of commoners, was nevertheless a
remarkable woman of whom Amenhotep was proud. Nevertheless, there was also a great influx of foreign
blood into the royal family, for there were brought into the king’s harem princesses from several foreign
91
kingdoms, the most important being Gilukhepa, of the Mitanni. That northern Mesopotamian kingdom,
ruled by Indo-European Hurrians, had formerly been the greatest rival to the power of the earlier kings of
the Eighteenth Dynasty, but was now cultivating friendly relations with Egypt.
Amenhotep III apparently considered the wealth of Asia and Africa, regularly coming to him by way of
tribute, as something that had always enriched Egypt, and would continue to do so without any further
effort on his part. He did not notice the distant rumblings of the breakup of his Asiatic empire. The
Hittites in the north, unruly local princes in Syria and Palestine, and the intruding Habiru in those same
countries nibbled away at the edges of the empire, and must have occasioned a noticeable decrease in the
revenue of Egypt. However, the lazy Pharaoh did nothing to stem the tide of imperial decay.
Ikhnaton - Near the close of his reign, Amenhotep III made his son Amenhotep IV (Ikhnaton) coregent.
His sole reign lasted from about 1375 to 1366 B.C. He is one of the most controversial personalities of
history. While one scholar characterized him as the “first individual in history,” “a very exceptional man”
(Breasted), another described him as “half insane” (Budge). Two recent authors speak of him as “the most
fascinating personality who ever sat on the throne of the Pharaohs” (Steindorff and Seele), and another
describes him as effeminate, abnormal, and dominated by women (Pendlebury).
Amenhotep IV, or Ikhnaton, as the king called himself after his religious revolution, broke with the
traditional Amen religion of Egypt, and elevated Aten, the sun disk, to be the supreme and only god of the
realm. Himself a physical weakling, he was possessed of a strong will power, and made a vigorous
attempt to stamp out the religion and cult of Amen. Since Thebes was too strongly connected with Amen,
Amenhotep moved the capital to another site several hundred miles down the river, where he built a city
called Akhetaton, and vowed never to leave that place. Here he was surrounded by his followers, courtiers,
poets, architects, and artists. With his encouragement, these men developed the new, realistic form of art
that had only recently been introduced in Egypt. Artists painted and modeled their objects, not according
to the traditional idealistic style, as had been the custom, but as they appeared to the eye—beautiful or
ugly. Up to this time, for example, every king, whether old or young, handsome or ugly, had been
depicted as a youthful and vigorous man—the ideal god-ruler. This was all changed now. The king was
sculptured and painted in all his ugliness with a protruding abdomen, an elongated skull, and a long chin.
His aging father was depicted as having a fat, sack-like figure.
Emphasis was also placed on ma‘at, which has been translated “truth,” but which means also “order,”
“Justice,” and “right.” Accordingly, things were to be seen as they are, not as they ought to be—really
rather than ideally. In this principle, the young king was far ahead of his time and could not be understood,
and for this reason, his revolution failed. However, his artists produced some of the masterpieces of all
time, as, for example, the bust of Nefertiti, now in the Berlin Museum, and mural paintings of birds and
plant life that have not been surpassed in beauty by painters of other periods, ancient or modern.
The king’s new religion has been called monotheism—a belief in one universal god. It is, however, highly
questionable whether this term can rightly be applied to the brand of religion Ikhnaton introduced. It is
true that he never worshiped any other god than Aton after the revolution, but his subjects did not worship
Aton. They continued to worship the king as their god, as they had before, and he not only tolerated but
apparently required this continued worship of his person.
92
Either the king or some poet of his time composed a hymn to Aton, praising the sun disk as the creator-
god. Since this hymn is in certain respects parallel in wording and composition to the 104" psalm, some
scholars have thought the latter to be a Hebrew edition of the Aton hymn. There is, however, no valid
evidence to support this assumption, since any poet, glorifying a certain god as the supreme god of
creation, who produces and preserves life and well-being, will use terms and expressions that are
somewhat similar to those found in the Aton hymn or the 104" psalm.
The king was married to beautiful Nefertiti, whose world-famous bust, found in a sculptor’s studio at
Amarna, is one of the masterpieces of ancient art. The royal couple had six daughters, but no sons.
However, the family life seems to have been very happy and natural, as contemporary pictures reveal.
Never before did an Egyptian king have himself and his family depicted as did this monarch, kissing one
of his daughters, or caressing his wife.
While Ikhnaton built palaces and sun temples in his new capital, and sponsored a naturalistic art far
advanced for his time, his henchmen went through the country trying to eradicate the old religion by
chiseling from all monuments the names of all other gods but Aton. The temples were closed, and the
priests lost their customary allowances. That this policy created a deep-seated enmity in conservative
circles can easily be understood. This feeling of hatred against Ikhnaton was increased by the gradual
decrease in foreign revenue, which resulted in greater tax burdens for the Egyptian citizens, and
simultaneously impoverished the population. This situation resulted from the gradual breakup of the
empire. The first signs of the weakening power of Egypt in Asia had been evident under Amenhotep III,
but they became more manifest under the weak rule of Ikhnaton, who lived his new religion, chanted
hymns to Aton, refused to leave his new capital, and apparently did not care that the foreign possessions
built up by means of the numerous military expeditions of his illustrious ancestors were being lost, one
after another.
The Amarna Letters - The rich archive of cuneiform tablets found in the ruins of Ikhnaton’s short-lived
and ill-fated capital, Akhetaton, now called Tell el-‘Amarna, contains much information concerning the
contemporary political situation in Palestine and Syria. These hundreds of clay tablets, found in 1887,
come from the official files of correspondence between the Palestinian and Syrian vassal princes and
Pharaoh, as well as from the friendly kings of Mitanni, Assyria, and Babylonia. Few discoveries have
shed more light on a limited period of the ancient world than have the Amarna Letters on the time of the
kings Amenhotep II and Amenhotep IV (Ikhnaton).
These letters reveal clearly the waning influence of Egypt in Asia, as the powerful Hittites pressed against
the Egyptian Empire and occupied a number of regions in northern Syria. Local Asiatic dynasties
quarreled one with another, the more powerful overthrowing the weaker and thereby enlarging their own
power and territory. The most notorious among these princes, who pretended to be vassals of Egypt but
fought against Egyptian interests wherever they could, were Abd-Ashirta and later his son Aziru of
Amurtrru. They extended their domain over a number of neighboring wealthy areas, such as Byblos, Beirut,
and other Phoenician coastal cities.
In Palestine, the situation was similar. A number of local rulers took advantage of Egypt’s weakness to
extend their own possessions. There were also the Habiru, who invaded the country during this time from
the direction of Transjordan. One city after another fell into their hands, and those among the princes who
tried to remain faithful to Egypt, like the king of Jerusalem, wrote one frantic letter after another to
93
Pharaoh begging for military help against the invading Habiru. However, all the efforts of loyal princes
and commissioners to stem the tide of rebellion and invasion were in vain. Official Egypt turned a deaf
ear to all pleas and seemed to be indifferent to what happened in Syria or Palestine. This situation is
vividly depicted in the Amarna Letters, which will be referred to again in the section dealing with the
invasion of Canaan by the Hebrews. It is generally believed that the Habiru of the Amarna Letters were
related to the Hebrews (see Genesis 10:21; 14:13).
Toward the end of his reign, Ikhnaton made Smenkhkare, his son-in-law, coregent. Ancient records give
him four regnal years, but they probably fall entirely within the reign of his father-in-law. After
Ikhnaton’s death, another son-in-law came to the throne, the young Tutankhaton, meaning “the living
form of Aton” (1366-1357 B.C.). He was not strong enough to withstand the pressure of the conservatives,
and was forced to return to Thebes to restore the Amen cult and religion. He changed his name to
Tutankhamen, abandoned the capital Akhetaton (Amarna), and tried to make amends for the “heresy” of
his predecessors by repairing various temples, reinstating the Amen priests, and restoring the Amen cult
to its former glory. When he died, after a reign of less than ten years, he received a magnificent burial in
the Valley of the Kings in western Thebes, where all the pre-Amarna kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty had
been buried. Since his is the only royal tomb to remain unmolested until its discovery in 1922, with its
marvelous treasures, the name of Tutankhamen has become a modern household word. He is better
known than any other Egyptian king, although he was only one of the insignificant and ephemeral rulers
of Egypt’s long history.
Tutankhamen left no children, and his widow turned to the Hittite king Shubbiluliuma, asking him in a
letter for one of his sons to marry her and become king of Egypt. The Hittite king was at first baffled at
this unusual request, and made an investigation as to the sincerity of the queen. Satisfied at last with
regard thereto, he sent one of the Hittite princes to Egypt, who, however, was waylaid and murdered en
route. This was probably arranged by Eye, one of the most influential courtiers of the previous Pharaohs.
He forced Tutankhamen’s widow to marry him and accordingly ruled Egypt for a few years (1357-1353
B.C.). He usurped not only the throne but also the mortuary temple and statutes of his predecessor.
When Eye in turn died, after a reign of about four years, the reins of government were taken over by the
former army commander, Harmhab, who ruled for 34 years (1353-1320 B.C.). He is usually counted as
the first king of the Nineteenth Dynasty. Harmhab seems to have been less tinged with the Amarna
revolution than his two predecessors, and was therefore more acceptable to the priesthood and to the
conservatives of the country. He began to count his regnal years from the death of Amenhotep III, as if he
had been the legitimate ruler over Egypt during the time of Ikhnaton, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamen, and
Eye. These four rulers were henceforth regarded as having been usurpers, “heretics,” and are therefore not
mentioned in later king lists. Thus, Amenhotep III was officially followed immediately by Harmhab.
The first task Harmhab set for himself was that of restoring internal order and security in Egypt, which
seems to have been badly disrupted during the previous decades of weak rule. His edict, still extant, was
issued “to establish order and truth, and expel deceit and lying.” Priests were given special privileges in
the judicial system, and severe and cruel punishments were threatened for abuses of power by officers of
the realm. Since all his energy seems to have been needed for a restoration of order in the country, he had
neither time nor power to regain the Asiatic possessions which by this time had completely been lost.
Since the death of Thutmose IV in 1412 B.C., no Egyptian king had been seen in Syria or Palestine, with
94
the result that the Pharaoh was no longer known or feared there. This situation was advantageous to the
Hebrews, who probably began their invasion of Palestine in 1405, and were able in succeeding decades to
establish themselves there without interference on the part of the kings of Egypt.
The Nineteenth Dynasty - Dying childless, Harmhab was followed by his appointed successor, the
general of the army, Ramses I. An old man, Ramses I died after a short reign (1320-1319 B.C.), and left
the throne to his son, Seti I (1319-1299 B.C.). With him, a new era began, and once more the power of
Egypt was felt. He made determined and partly successful attempts to regain the Asiatic possessions.
Records carved on Egyptian temple walls and on a great stone monument found in the excavation of
Beth-shan, at the eastern end of the Valley of Esdraelon, in Palestine, disclose that the king invaded
Palestine during his first year. His chief aim was to regain some of the important cities which, in times
past, had been occupied by Egyptian garrisons, and to control once more the trade routes to the fertile and
rich Hauran in northern Transjordan. With three divisions, he claims to have attacked and conquered the
cities of Yano‘am, Beth-shan, and Hamath (south of Beth-shan) simultaneously. His victory stele found in
Beth-shan shows that he reoccupied the city and stationed an Egyptian garrison there. He then crossed the
Jordan and occupied certain rich areas in the Hauran, according to another victory monument found at
Tell esh—Shihab, about 22 miles east of the Sea of Galilee.
After Seti I had reoccupied certain important cities in western Palestine and Transjordan, he turned to
Syria and reconquered Kadesh on the Orontes, according to his official records carved on the temple
walls at Karnak and from the fragment of a victory stele found at Kadesh itself. On a later campaign Seti I
advanced even farther north, to punish the renegade kingdom of Amurru and to force the Hittites to
recognize certain rights of Egypt over northern Syria. Once more, loot from Syria and cedarwood from
the Lebanon came to Egypt, although not in the quantities of a century earlier. However, Egypt once more
enjoyed the satisfaction of being the proud ruler of foreign regions and peoples in Asia, although the new
empire was but a shadow of the former one.
During the reign of Seti I, a freer interchange of culture began to take place between Egypt and Asia than
even before. Canaanite deities, such as Baal, Resheph, Anath, Astarte, and others, were accepted into the
Egyptian cult system. The Egyptian religion lost its isolation and some of its national peculiarities. From
now on, more emphasis was placed on magic, ritual, and oracles, with the gods Fortune and Fate taking a
more important role in the religious life of the Egyptians.
Ramses II and the Hittites - The policy of reconquering the Asiatic empire was continued by the next
king, Ramses II (1299-1232 B.C.), whose reign was exceptionally long. The fact that he usurped many
Egyptian monuments by exchanging his name for those of his royal predecessors, making it appear that
these monuments had been erected by him, together with great building activity of his own, made Ramses
II more famous than he deserved. The name of no other Pharaoh is found so often on ancient monuments
as that of Ramses II. As a result, earlier Egyptologists attributed fame to him out of all proportion to his
accomplishments.
When Ramses II came to the throne, the Hittite king Mutallu advised a Syrian prince to hasten to Egypt
and pay homage to the new king, perhaps as a precaution, since no one could know what the young
Pharaoh might do. As time passed and there were no marked signs of determination on the part of Ramses
to hold on to his Asiatic possessions, the Hittite king organized a confederacy of Anatolian and Syrian
states, which not only proclaimed its own complete independence, but also annexed other Egyptian
95
possessions in Syria. Its combined army of some 30,000 men was determined to keep northern Syria out
of the Egyptian Empire.
Ramses logically felt that he must meet the challenge of the hour. With four divisions, bearing the names
of the gods Amen, Ra, Ptah, and Set, probably equal in strength to the forces of the Hittite confederacy,
he marched north. The Hittite army awaited the Egyptians at Kadesh on the Orontes, where the famous
battle between Ramses and Mutallu took place. This struggle was described in word and picture on
numerous monuments throughout Egypt.
The Hittites sprang a trap on Ramses. The latter had picked up a pretended Hittite deserter who reported
that Mutallu had retreated and left Kadesh for better defensive positions in the north, while actually he
was poised behind the city of Kadesh ready to attack. Suspecting no malice, Ramses therefore marched
northward. Crossing the brook El-Mukadiyeh with the division of Amen, he pitched camp on the northern
bank. When the next division, that of Ra, forded the same brook, Mutallu, with part of his army, slipped
over the Orontes behind the Ra division and began to attack the surprised Egyptians simultaneously from
both the south and the north. Ramses’ two other divisions were still on the march seven or more miles to
the south while the men of the Amen and Ra divisions were fighting for their lives.
The story of how Ramses saved his army by personal heroism is legendary and needs no repetition here.
His claim to have turned the imminent defeat into a brilliant victory, proclaimed on many monuments,
must also be taken with a grain of salt, because the Hittites claimed likewise to have won a complete
victory over the Egyptians. It is probably true that Ramses was able to save the greater part of his army
and so avoid a disaster, but he can hardly have been victorious, since the contested region of Syria was
retained by the Hittites and permanently lost to Egypt. Hittite texts indicate, furthermore, that the Hittites
penetrated the Lebanon and extended their power over Damascus, in southern Syria, which they would
hardly have been able to do if they had been defeated as Ramses claims.
During the reigns of the two following Hittite rulers, Urkhi-Teshub and Hattushilish II, relations with
Egypt gradually became more peaceful, and a treaty of friendship between the two kingdoms was finally
concluded in the 21“ year of Ramses II. Since an Egyptian copy of the text of the treaty may be seen
today on the temple walls at Karnak, and a Hittite copy has come to light from the royal archives of the
Hittite capital city Khattushash (Boghazk6y), we are exceptionally well informed concerning it. The two
documents contain a preamble explaining why the treaty was concluded and noting that diplomatic
negotiations had preceded ratification of the pact. It contains, furthermore, a declaration of mutual
nonaggression but, strangely, without defining the borders of their respective geographical spheres of
influence. Their alliance included mutual assistance against external enemies and internal rebels, and an
agreement on the part of each to surrender political refugees to the other. The two documents close with
various divine sanctions against any king who might break the provisions of the treaty.
This treaty of friendship remained in force for the remainder of the existence of the Hittite kingdom.
Thirteen years after its conclusion, Ramses married a Hittite princess, and a rich correspondence between
the two royal houses testifies to the friendly relations that existed between them. When a famine ravaged
Anatolia during the reign of Merneptah, son of Ramses II, the latter sent grain to the Hittites to alleviate
their plight. After this event nothing more is heard of the Hittites. The excavations at Boghazkoy have
shown that the city was destroyed about 1200 B.C. by the People of the Sea, who at that time brought to
an end the Hittite empire.
96
Ramses II and the ‘Apiru - Many scholars have considered Ramses II to have been the Pharaoh of the
oppression. This conclusion has been reached in the first place because Exodus 1:11 states that the store
cities of “Raamses” and “Pithom” were built by the Hebrews. It is pointed out that Ramses II replaced the
name Tanis with his own name when he embellished that city and made it his capital. He did not,
however, completely abandon the city of Thebes, where he was later buried. In addition, his long reign,
marked by great building activity throughout Egypt carried on by enormous numbers of slaves, among
whom the ‘Apiru (identified with the Habiru and Hebrews) are repeatedly mentioned, seems to many
scholars to be weighty evidence for assigning the Egyptian slavery of the Israelites to the reign of Ramses
II. To this is added some archeological evidence from Palestine, where the excavations of Tell Beit
Mirsim, Bethel, and other places seem to indicate that these cities were destroyed in the 13th century B.C.
and not in the 14th.
Against this theory, there exist some weighty objections. Definite chronological statements made in the
Bible, such as those of 1 Kings 6:1 and Judges 11:26, cannot be harmonized with an Exodus that took
place in the late 13" century, but require a date for the Exodus that lies at least two centuries earlier. The
period of the judges, from Joshua to Samuel, cannot be compressed into a period of some 150 years
without doing violence to the Biblical narrative of that part of the history of Israel.
Furthermore, an inscription of King Merneptah, who is considered by the defenders of the 13th-century
Exodus to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus, also testifies against this theory, for this inscription claims that
the king encountered and defeated Israelites in Palestine. Merneptah reigned only a few years, and if the
Exodus had taken place under his reign, the Israelites, who wandered in the wilderness for about 40 years,
would have still been at Sinai when he died. Thus, it would not have been possible for him to defeat them
in Palestine. To accept Merneptah as Pharaoh of the Exodus requires, therefore, further corrections of the
sacred records. Hence, it is assumed by the advocates of a 13th-century Exodus that not all the tribes of
Israel had been in Egypt but that Merneptah met Israelites who had remained in Canaan.
Furthermore, evidence apparently favorable to an Exodus under Ramses II can be understood in such a
way that it does not preclude the earlier Exodus recommended in this book. The names Rameses and
Raamses in Genesis and Exodus, often pointed to as evidence of a 13th-century Exodus, probably
represent a modernization of older names by later scribes (see on Genesis 47:11; Exodus 1:11). The
‘Apiru mentioned in texts of Ramses II as slave laborers can be Habiru or Hebrews without assuming that
they refer to the Israelites who were oppressed in Egypt before the Exodus, because Ramses II may have
employed Hebrew slaves in his building activity while the Israelites were in Palestine. These slaves may
have come into his hands through military activities in Palestine during the period of the judges. That the
ruins of some Palestinian cities reveal no signs of destruction in the levels representing the 14" century
B.C., but show them 150 years later, can also be satisfactorily accounted for. The destruction of some of
the conquered cities in Joshua’s time was not thorough, and the Israelites made no attempt to occupy them,
but left them in the hands of the Canaanites (see on Judges 1:21, 27-33). It must also be remembered that
not all identifications of ancient sites are certain. Tell Beit Mirsim, for example, has been identified with
the city of Debir conquered by Othniel (Joshua 15:15-17), but no definite evidence came to light during
the excavations that proved the correctness of an otherwise very plausible identification.
A Biblical chronology based on Solomon’s beginning to build the Temple in the 480th year from the
Exodus requires a 15th-century Exodus. Hence, the 13th-century Exodus must be rejected, as well as the
97
view held by many Biblical scholars, that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of the oppression and his son
Merneptah the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
Merneptah - When Merneptah, thirteenth son of Ramses, came to the throne in 1232 B.C., he was
already an old man, and had to cope with a serious invasion attempted by the Libyans. He claims to have
successfully resisted this attempt and to have made 9,000 prisoners, among whom were also more than a
thousand Greeks. On his victory stele, he also speaks of a campaign against several cities and peoples in
Palestine, among whom are mentioned the Israelites. This important passage reads thus:
“Desolated is Tehenu [a Libyan tribe];
Hatti [the land of the Hittites] is pacified,
Conquered is the Canaan with every evil.
Carried off is Ascalon, seized is Gezer,
Yanoam is destroyed,
Israel is laid waste, it has no (more) seed.
Hurru [the land of the Horites] has become a widow for Egypt.”
This famous passage, already mentioned, shows that Merneptah had encountered the Israelites in one of
his Palestinian campaigns, as their name, in connection with Palestinian cities, shows. Israel’s location
between the cities Ascalon, Gezer, Yano‘am, and the land of the Horites or Hurrians is an indication
where the king had met them. The first-mentioned cities lay in south western Palestine, whereas the name
Hurru may either stand for the inhabitants of the south eastern part of the country (Edom), or be a general
term for Palestine, as frequently used in Egyptian inscriptions. It is most interesting that the name Israel
received the hieroglyphic determinative for “people,” and the other names have determinatives meaning
“foreign country.” This indicates that the Israelites they encountered at that time were not considered a
settled people, which agrees with the situation during the period of the judges as described in the Bible.
Since Merneptah’s campaign occurred during the period, when the tribes of Israel were still struggling for
a foothold in Canaan, they could only be described on an Egyptian monument as an unsettled people—not
as a nation with a fixed habitat.
Also from the time of Merneptah, come interesting records kept by officials guarding Egypt’s
northeastern frontier, officials who may be compared to modern immigration officers. These records
contain the name and function of every person crossing the border, mostly couriers in Egypt’s diplomatic
service. Mention is also made of an Edomite tribe that was permitted to find temporary pasture for its
flocks in the Nile Delta. These documents show that the frontier was well guarded, and that the crossing
of the border was no easy matter for unauthorized individuals or groups, during the Nineteenth Dynasty.
The Twentieth Dynasty - The death of Merneptah marked the beginning of a period of political chaos in
Egypt which lasted for several years. A number of kings followed one another on the throne in rapid
succession, one even being a Syrian. The land was eventually rescued from this sorry state of affairs by a
man of unknown origin named Setnakht, who became the founder of the Twentieth Dynasty. When he left
the throne to his son, who became Ramses III (1198-1167 B.C.), Egypt once more had a strong and
energetic king who saved his country from grave peril.
During the time of Egyptian weakness, preceding the reign of Ramses III the Libyans had infiltrated the
fertile region of the Delta and formed an ever-increasing menace to the internal security of the country.
98
Their mere presence was a continual threat, because in case of an invasion, they could be expected to
make common cause with their compatriots living beyond the western border of Egypt. In the fifth year of
his reign, Ramses III went to war against the Libyans, and in a bloody battle defeated them decisively. He
claims to have slain 12,535 of them and to have taken many thousands of captives.
The Peoples of the Sea - After averting the danger from the west, Ramses had to meet another, even
greater, danger from the north east. The so-called Peoples of the Sea, from Crete, Greece, the Aegean
Islands, and perhaps from Sardinia and Sicily, moved eastward. They overran and destroyed coastal cities
of Asia Minor, such as Troy, then the Hittite kingdom, as well as a number of states in northern Syria,
such as Ugarit, and marched down the coast of Phoenicia and Palestine in an effort to invade the greatest
civilized country of their time, the fertile Nile valley. Among them were the Tjekker and the Philistines,
the latter coming in ox-drawn carts with their families. Both tribes settled on the coast of Palestine after
the migration of the Peoples of the Sea had ended. Realizing the seriousness of the situation, Ramses III
met the enemy forces at the Palestinian border, in his eighth a serious defeat upon the would-be invaders,
and destroyed their navy when it attempted a landing in one of the channels of the Nile. Although Ramses
was thus able to save Egypt from invasion, he was not strong enough to drive the Tjekker and Philistines
out of Palestine. Settling down, they controlled the rich coastal region for many centuries. In this, they
were probably assisted by certain Philistine tribes that had arrived prior to the movement of the Peoples of
the Sea, which brought strong contingents of racially related peoples into the country.
In Medinet Habu, a temple built by Ramses II] in western Thebes and today the best preserved of all pre-
Hellenistic Egyptian temples, the king depicted his battles in monumental reliefs. These pictures are of
great value, for they show the features of the different peoples with whom Ramses fought. The Philistines
appear in their typical feather helmets, by which they can always be recognized. There are also other
Peoples of the Sea, the Sherden (probably Sardinians), the Siculi (Sicilians), the Dardanians from western
Asia Minor, the Achaeans from the Aegean Islands, and other peoples, all with their typical helmets or
other characteristic marks. These reliefs, depicting the warfare of that time on land and sea, thus form
important illustrative source material for a correct understanding of the racial movements that took place
in the lands of the eastern Mediterranean during the period of the judges of Israel, but movements that did
not affect the people of Israel themselves.
The Israelites lived in the hinterland of Palestine, and the main thoroughfares along the coast witnessed
the decisive battles of the time. However, in the latter times of the judges the Philistines consolidated their
hold on the coastal regions of Palestine and threatened the national existence of Israel. They extended
their influence over the mountainous part of Palestine and subjugated Israel for decades. The struggle
with the Philistines proved to be a long one, and the fight for liberty begun under Samson, continued
under Samuel and Saul, and was completed only in the reign of David.
Ramses III not only succeeded in saving Egypt from external dangers but also promoted its internal
security. One text remarks with satisfaction that once more “women could walk wherever they wanted
without molestation.” From the close of his reign comes the great Papyrus Harris, now in the British
Museum, which contains a summary of all the gifts the king had made to the various temples and gods,
and of the property the temples had possessed before him. This valuable document is a major source of
information on Egypt’s secular and ecclesiastical economy during that time. However, two main
problems are posed by this manuscript: (1) Were the gifts of the king added to former holdings, or did
99
they consist of a royal confirmation of old possessions? (2) In what relationship do these gifts and
holdings stand to the economy of all Egypt? Hence, this document has been interpreted differently by
various scholars. Breasted thinks that about 8 per cent of the population of Egypt stood in the service of
the temple, and that about 15 per cent of the land was ecclesiastical property. Schaedel, however, holds
that the figures should be 20 per cent and 30 per cent respectively. Whatever figures are right, it is evident
that ecclesiastical leaders played an important role in Egypt at that time, and that no king had a chance of
survival unless he supported them.
Egypt in Decline - Ramses II apparently fell victim to a harem conspiracy, in which some of his
concubines and at least one of his sons were involved, besides high state officials. Some of the judicial
records dealing with the investigation of this case and the sentences imposed are available today. These
documents throw interesting light on the judicial system of ancient Egypt, and indirectly on the case of
the two courtiers who shared Joseph’s prison during the time their cases were being investigated (see
Genesis 40:1-3).
Ramses III was followed by a number of weak kings, every one of whom bore the name Ramses,
numbered now as Ramses IV to XI (1167-1085 B.C.). During the period of their reign, Egypt experienced
a steady decline of royal power and an equivalent increase of priestly influence. The priesthood of Amen,
forming the most influential and powerful portion of Egypt’s ecclesiastical citizenry, finally overthrew the
dynasty and made its own high priest king.
With the deterioration of political and economic strength, Egypt’s internal troubles became acute. Ramses
III was the last king who held Beth-shan in the Valley of Esdraelon, which had been an Egyptian city for
centuries. Although the base of a statute of Ramses VI was found during the excavation of Megiddo, there
is not the slightest evidence that this king had any influence in Palestine. This bronze statuette may have
been sent to Palestine as a gift. The last royal name mentioned in the inscriptions at the copper mines at
Sinai is that of Ramses IV, showing that after him no more expeditions were sent to Sinai for mining
purposes.
The loss of the last foreign holdings caused an increase of poverty and insecurity and caused inflation. A
sack of barley rose in price from 2 to 8 deben. Spelt (a cheaper kind of wheat) rose from 1 to 4 deben
during the reign of the kings Ramses VII to X, and later leveled off at 2 deben. As the cost of living rose,
the revenue of the government fell off, with the result that it could not pay its officers and workers. This
in turn resulted in strikes of government workers, the first recorded strikes in history. Several serious
situations thus arose in places where many men were occupied on public works, for example, in western
Thebes, where the upkeep of the tremendous royal necropolis with all its temples required a great force.
Another cause of the difficult situation was widespread official corruption. As an example, the case of an
official may be cited, who was responsible for the shipment of grain from Lower Egypt to the temple of
Khnum at Elephantine in Upper Egypt. When he was later tried for embezzlement, it was found that of
6,300 sacks of grain received in the course of 9 years, he had delivered only 576 sacks, or about 9 per cent
of the total. The other 91 per cent of the grain had been embezzled by him, in collaboration with certain of
the scribes, controllers, and cultivators attached to Khnum’s temple. The records of that time tell also of
bands of roving and plundering soldiers who were a scourge on the population, and of continual cases of
tomb robberies. Since the population suffered under the economic stress of the times, while everyone
knew that untold treasures in gold and silver were hidden in the royal tombs in the valleys of the kings
100
and queens in western Thebes, it is not surprising to read of attempts made to obtain some of those
treasures. The available records of investigations of tomb robberies leave the impression that even
officials were involved in the thefts. Such robberies occurred so frequently later on, that every royal tomb,
with the exception of that of Tutankhamen, was eventually looted. Little if anything remained for the
archeologist.
By the close of the Twentieth Dynasty (1085 B.C.) Egypt had reached one of the lowest points in its long
and checkered history. Nothing of its former wealth and glory was left. Its envoys were despised in
foreign lands, as the Wenamon story and a satirical letter reveal—as will be seen in connection with the
history of the judges of Israel. Egypt had become a “bruised reed,” as an Assyrian officer mockingly
called it several centuries later, in Hezekiah’s time (2 Kings 18:21). This weakness, which began in the
time of the judges, proved a blessing to the young nation of Israel, which was thus able to develop
without being hindered by a strong neighboring power.
The Kingdom of Mitanni (1600 B.C.—1350 B.C.)
The greatest rival of Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty was the kingdom of Mitanni in northern
Mesopotamia. Although recent discoveries have thrown some light on the history of this obscure power,
little is known of it. The site of its ancient capital, Washshukani, known from Hittite records, has not yet
been discovered, although it is generally believed to have been in the upper Chabur region near Tell Halaf.
The ancient native population of the whole region consisted of Aramaeans speaking the Aramaic
language, but the rulers were Hurrians, who had taken possession of the country in the 17" century B.C.
“Hurrian” is the ethnic name of an Aryan branch of the great Indo-European family of nations, whereas
Mitanni is the name of the state over which the Hurrians ruled. The names of their kings and high officials
resemble Aryan names, and those of their gods are found in the Indian Veda: Mithras, Varuna, Indra, and
Nasatya.
Although the beginning of the kingdom of Mitanni is obscure, it is known that Hurrians occupied this
region about the 17" century, for the Hittites, under their king, Murshilish, fought the Hurrians on their
return to Anatolia after the conquest and destruction of Babylon. However, it is not until the 15" century
B.C. that the names of their kings appear in written source material, particularly in the Egyptian records
of Thutmose HI and Amenhotep I, with whom these kings had several encounters. However, toward the
end of the 15" century, friendly relations between the royal houses of Egypt and Mitanni were established,
so that for several successive generations, Egyptian kings took Mitanni princesses as wives. Artatama I of
Mitanni gave his daughter to Thutmose IV; Shutarna II, his daughter Gilukhepa to Amenhotep II; and
Tushratta, his daughter Tadu-khepa to Amenhotep IV. This is the time (14th century B.C.) of the Amarna
Letters, which reveal, among other things, the friendly relations between Egypt and the Hurrians of
Mitanni.
The reason for this change from hostility to friendship may have been the emergence of a new power in
the north west, the Hittites. As the Hittites gradually extended their influence over all eastern Asia Minor,
and attempted to make their influence felt in Syria and northern Mesopotamia—at that time either
Egyptian or Mitanni territory—the two former enemies became friends out of necessity. But their joint
endeavors were not strong enough to hold the vigorous Hittites in check for long, and under the weak
101
reign of Pharaoh Ikhnaton, it was apparent in Syria that Egypt no longer played a decisive role in Asiatic
affairs. Hence, about 1365 B.C. Mattiwaza of Mitanni concluded a treaty of friendship with
Shubbiluliuma, the powerful Hittite king of that time, and recognized his sovereign influence in Syria.
The north eastern Hurrians had in the meantime founded a separate kingdom under the name of Hurri.
The names of two of its kings (a son and grandson of Shutarna of Mitanni) are known, both from the 14"
century B.C.
After the middle of the 14" century all ancient sources are silent concerning the Mitanni kingdom, but the
Assyrian records from about 1325 to 1250 B.C. speak of a kingdom of Hanigalbat lying in the same
region as the former Mitanni. Since the kings of Hanigalbat had Aryan names like those of the former
Mitanni kingdom, it seems that Hanigalbat was the successor of Mitanni. It was, however, a country with
little power and influence, and small in extent, inasmuch as its western regions had become part of the
Hittite empire, and its eastern ones part of Assyria. This kingdom probably came to its end in the 13"
century and broke up into several small city states, which were later absorbed by Assyria during its period
of expansion.
Although the history of the Hurrian kingdom of northern Mesopotamia is still rather obscure, the above
sketch is given because the Hurrians played an important role in the movements of races in the second
millennium B.C. They extended their influence over much of the ancient world, reaching even to southern
Palestine, as we know from Egyptian records. In the Bible the Hurrians are called Horims or Horites (see
Genesis 14:6; 36:20, 21; Deuteronomy 2:12, 22). The importance of the Hurrians in Palestine can be seen
from the fact that at certain periods the Egyptians called the whole land Kharu. It is possible that King
Chushan-rishathaim of Mesopotamia, who oppressed Israel for eight years soon after Joshua’s death and
was finally defeated by Caleb’s younger brother Othniel (Judges 3:8-10), was one of the Mitanni kings of
the 14" century B.C. Because of the similarity of sound, Tushratta has been identified with Chushan-
rishathaim, but it is thought the latter may have been one of the kings of the period after 1365 B.C. for
which no records have been found so far.
The Hittite Empire From 1400 B.C.—1200 B.C.
The old Hittite kingdom, which early in its history destroyed Babylon, has been discussed previously.
Hittite history before 1400 B.C. is not well known, and even the succession of kings is a matter of
discussion among scholars. However, after 1400 B.C., the Hittite kingdom enters into the full light of
history.
Its capital, Khattushash, lay inside the great bend of the Halys in Asia Minor, near the village of
Boghazkoy, which is not far from the present Turkish capital, Ankara. Being an Indo-European people,
the Hittites were racially related to the Hurrians, from whom they took much of their religion, as well as
products of the Mesopotamian civilization and culture that the Hurrians had accepted from the
Babylonians and Assyrians. In this way, they took over the Babylonian cuneiform script, certain forms of
art, literary products, such as epics and myths, and even gods and religious concepts. However, they by no
means lost their own peculiar cultural values, such as their hieroglyphic script, which has only recently
been deciphered.
102
The Hittites were a hardy and semi-barbaric nation whose products of art did not reach to the high level
the Egyptians had attained, nor did they build temples like some of the other nations, but their laws show
that they were much more kind hearted and humane than most of the other ancient nations.
Rise of Hittite Power - The first great king of the Hittites recognizable in history is Shubbiluliuma, who
reigned from C. 1375 to C. 1335 B.C. A great catastrophe of a somewhat obscure nature had struck the
nation a little before his accession to the throne. Although the records of this catastrophe are not clear, it
seems that some subject nations of eastern Asia Minor had risen against their lords and destroyed the
Hittite capital Khattushash. After Shubbiluliuma gained the throne, his first care was to rebuild the capital
and to restore order in the kingdom. This was done through a number of campaigns. When the Hittite king
once more was master over the different peoples of eastern Asia Minor, he turned against the rival
kingdom of Mitanni. His first campaign seems to have been unsuccessful, because the Mitanni king
Tushratta says in one of his letters to the Egyptian Pharaoh that he had gained a victory over the Hittites,
but Shubbiluliuma must have had some success, as can be learned from another letter in the Amarna
collection written by Rib-Addi of Byblos. Shubbiluliuma’s second Syrian campaign was a complete
success. He not only conquered the capital of the Mitanni kingdom but penetrated southern Syria to the
Lebanon. When domestic troubles broke out in the family of Tushratta, with the result that he was killed,
Shubbiluliuma placed Tushratta’s son Mattiwaza, who had taken refuge with him, on the throne, and gave
him his daughter as wife—thus binding the two royal houses together.
As already mentioned in the discussion of Egyptian history, it was at this time, when the Hittite king
besieged the city of Carchemish on the Euphrates, that a request reached him from Tutankhamen’s widow
to send her one of his sons to become her husband and king of Egypt. The prince sent in response to this
request was waylaid and murdered before reaching the country of the Nile. Upon receipt of the news of
this crime Shubbiluliuma conducted a successful campaign against the Egyptians but was forced to retreat
without being able to take advantage of his victory because of an outbreak of the plague, which ravaged
the Hittite country for 20 years.
Four of Shubbiluliuma’s sons became kings, two of them during their father’s lifetime—one over Aleppo,
another over Carchemish. A third son, Arnuwanda III, succeeded his father on the throne over the Hittite
empire; and after his death, a younger brother, Murshilish II, gained the throne. A considerable number of
contemporary documents provide ample information covering the reign of the last-mentioned king. He
practically had to rebuild his father’s empire because a number of revolts had broken out upon his father’s
death, and again when his brother Arnuwanda died. His life story is therefore filled with military
campaigns against various peoples of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egyptian garrison forces.
The next king, Mutallu, also experienced a serious rebellion by a subject people, the Gashga, who
succeeded in conquering and destroying the Hittite capital city of Khattushash, forcing the Hittite king to
establish a temporary capital elsewhere. When, for some reason, the local kingdom of Amurru in northern
Syria wanted to break its ties with the Hittites in favor of Egypt, to which it formerly belonged, Mutallu
interfered, and with his allies forced Amurru to remain apart from the Egyptian Empire. It was at this
moment that he met the Egyptian king Ramses II in the battle of Kadesh on the Orontes. Ramses had
come to northern Syria to claim his old rights. The famous battle at Kadesh has already been described in
connection with the history of the reign of Ramses II. Although Ramses II claimed to have won a victory,
the battle ended in a draw, by which the Hittites gained some advantages. This conclusion is reached from
103
the fact that after the battle of Kadesh the Hittites occupied Syrian territory that had not formerly been
under their suzerainty.
Friendship With Egypt - Urhi-Teshub, the next Hittite king, reigned uneventfully for seven years, when
he was deposed and banished by his uncle, who made himself king as Hattushilish II. Relations with
Egypt were still tense during the first years of his reign, as we know from a letter the Hittite king sent to
the Babylonian king Kadashman-Turgu, in which he finds fault with Babylon for being too friendly
toward Egypt. Later, however, he sought the friendship of Egypt and concluded a treaty with Ramses II in
the latter’s 21" year. This inaugurated a period of close cooperation between the two countries,
strengthened by the marriage of Ramses II to Hattushilish’s daughter 13 years later. The Hittites may
have regarded the restlessness among the Aegean peoples as the harbinger of coming evil, and therefore
desired friendly relations with their own eastern and southern neighbors—the Kassite rulers in Babylon
and the Egyptians. These precautions were fruitless, however, since neither Egypt nor the Kassites of
Babylon were strong enough to prevent the Hittites from falling prey to the irresistible advance of the Sea
Peoples through Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine.
The next three Hittite kings, Tuthaliya IV, Arnuwanda IV, and his successor, were comparatively weak
rulers. Very few documents have survived to throw light on their reigns. One treaty with the vassal
kingdom of Amurru in Syria provides for an embargo on Assyrian goods and prohibits Assyrian
merchants from passing through their land. This shows that Assyria was now in the ascendancy and was
considered an enemy. Merneptah of Egypt aided the Hittites during a severe famine in the reign of
Tuthaliya IV by shipments of grain, but the power of the Hittites was now a thing of the past, and its
downfall could not be delayed longer.
Fall of the Hittite Empire - About 1200 B.C. a great catastrophe brought the Hittite empire to a sudden
end. This is attested by the sudden cessation of all Hittite documentary material at that time, and by the
Egyptian statement that “Hatti was wasted.” No power proved able to resist the Peoples of the Sea, who
now poured through the countries of the north like a torrent. Archeological evidence agrees with these
observations, showing that the cities of Anatolia were burned at this time after being overrun by enemies.
Hittite culture and political influence completely disappeared from Asia Minor with the extinction of the
Hittite empire, though the previously subject city states of northern Syria and Mesopotamia carried on the
Hittite culture and tradition for several centuries, until they themselves were absorbed by the Assyrians in
the 9th century. Cities like Hamath on the Orontes, Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Karatepe on the
Ceyhan River show a well-balanced mixture of native Aramaic, or even Phoenician culture, along with
that of the Hittites. These were the Hittite states with which Solomon carried on a flourishing trade (2
Chronicles 1:17), and of whom the Syrians of Elisha’s time were afraid when they lifted the siege of
Samaria (2 Kings 7:6, 7). These city states are called Hittite kingdoms not only in the Bible but in the
Assyrian records of their time also. In fact, the whole of Syria became known as Hittite country in
Assyrian parlance of the empire period. When the cities of northern Syria were conquered and destroyed
and their populations deported by the Assyrians in the 9th and 8th centuries B.C., all knowledge of the
culture, language and script of the Hittites completely died out, and has been resurrected only recently
from its sleep of more than two and a half millenniums.
104
The Rise and Growth of the Sea Peoples (1400 B.C.—1200 B.C.)
The Peoples of the Sea mentioned in Egyptian sources of the times of Merneptah and Ramses III have
been mentioned in connection with the history of those Egyptian kings and in the account of the
destruction of the Hittite empire. However, our sources about these peoples are very limited, and consist
only of legends preserved by Homer, of Egyptian references to them, some archeological evidence, and a
few Bible statements.
In various Egyptian documents recovered by archeologists the name Peoples of the Sea appears as a
collective name for the Lycians, Achaeans, Sardinians (Sherden), Sicilians (Siculi), Danaeans, Weshwesh,
Teucrians (Tjekker), and Philistines (Peleshet).
Egypt had always had some connections with the peoples of Crete, the islands of the Aegean Sea, and the
mainland of Greece, as is evident from the presence of Egyptian objects in those areas and of Aegean
pottery in Egypt. Up to the time of Amenhotep III, the pottery from Crete is found more frequently in
Egypt than that of other Greek areas. Also, most of the Egyptian objects found in Europe up to this time
appear on Crete. After Amenhotep III, relations with Crete seem to have been interrupted, since Egyptian
objects from that time on have been found in only two places in Crete, whereas they have come to light in
seven places on the mainland of Greece and on other islands, showing that stronger connections were
developing with those areas. The archeological evidence at Crete shows, furthermore, that the rich culture
of Crete called by archeologists Minoan II ended with the destruction of the great palace at Cnossus, an
event which must have taken place between 1400 and 1350 B.C. This destruction was followed by the
more primitive culture of the invading peoples.
Homeric legends about the destruction or disappearance of the formidable sea power of Atlantis may refer
to Crete, which fell to these unknown invaders, who destroyed its culture as well as the power by which it
had dominated other Greek tribes. This event is also reflected in the legend about a Greek hero, Theseus,
who liberated the Greeks from subjection to Minos of Crete, in whose labyrinth lived the Minotaur. We
shall probably never know precisely what happened, but it is clear that the subject nations of the Aegean
banded together, and with their long ships fought against the galleys of Minos, which had for so long
monopolized the lucrative trade with Egypt and other lands. The destruction of the Cretan fleet resulted in
the invasion of the rich island and the destruction of its culture. From that time on, the trade of the central
Mediterranean lay in the hands of the peoples of the Aegean Sea, particularly those of coastal Asia Minor
and mainland Greece.
Migration of the Sea Peoples - But the migration of peoples did not stop with the destruction and
occupation of Crete. By the 13th century, the western coasts of Asia Minor were overrun and permanently
occupied by Greek-speaking peoples, and in the last years of Ramses II, the Peoples of the Sea and the
Libyans entered the western Delta and extended their settlements almost to the gates of Memphis and
Heliopolis. Merneptah, the son of Ramses II, had to face a mass invasion of these people, but was able to
defeat them and save Egypt from this western menace. It was in his time that the great invasion of central
Anatolia by the Peoples of the Sea took place. This marked the end of the Hittite empire and the
destruction of rich, north Syrian cities like Ugarit (Ras Shamrah). Cyprus was also occupied by these
western invaders. How the threat to Egypt was averted by Ramses II, who defeated these peoples in two
decisive battles, has already been told.
105
The Philistines - After these unsuccessful attempts to take possession of the Nile country, most of the
invaders who escaped from the Egyptian massacres and were not captured seem to have returned to the
west. The Tjekker and the Philistines, however, stayed in the country. The latter found some related tribes
in the southern coastal region of Palestine who had evidently lived there for centuries (see Genesis 21:34;
26:1; Exodus 13:17, 18), and appreciably added to their military strength. As a result the Philistines, who
had formerly been so weak that they sought treaties with Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 21:22-32; 26:26-
33), and had been so unimportant that their names never appear in the records of Egypt prior to the 12th
century, now became the gravest menace of the Israelites, who occupied the mountainous hinterland of
Palestine.
That the Philistines apparently belonged to the peoples that invaded and destroyed the ancient culture of
Crete, can be gathered from such texts as Jeremiah 47:4, where the Philistines are called “the remnant of
the country of Caphtor [Crete],” or Amos 9:7, where God is said to have brought up “the Philistines from
Caphtor.” Other texts (1 Samuel 30:14; Ezekiel 25:16; Zephaniah 2:5) bring the Cretes and Philistines
together as occupying the same territory. David seems to have had a bodyguard of Cherethites and
Pelethites, that is, Cretans and Philistines (2 Samuel 15:18; 1 Kings 1:38, 44), similar to the custom of
Ramses III, who made captured Philistines, Sardinians, and other Peoples of the Sea soldiers in his army.
These foreign mercenaries, with 600 Philistines from Gath (2 Samuel 15:18), were practically the only
soldiers who remained faithful to David at the time of Absalom’s rebellion.
Israel Under the Judges (1350—1050 B.C.)
The history of Assyria and Babylonia during the second half of the second millennium B.C. will be
discussed in connection with their later history, since these nations played no important role in Western
Asia during that time. However, after a survey of the history of the nations who surrounded the people of
Israel during the time of their conquest of Canaan, and the period when they were either ruled by judges
or oppressed by enemy nations, it is in order now to study the history of the people of God with whom the
Bible is mainly concerned. Whatever is known of the history of the lesser nations of Canaan during this
period will be mentioned at appropriate points rather than in separate sections.
Chronology of the Period - The time between the occupation of Canaan and the establishment of the
Hebrew monarchy is known as the period of the judges. The chronology of this period hinges on the date
of the death of Solomon. The working chronology adopted for this chapter puts Solomon’s death in
931/30 B.C., that is, in the Hebrew year running from the fall of 931 to the fall of 930. Hence, his
beginning to build the Temple, in the spring month Zif of his fourth year (1 Kings 6:1), fell in 967/66, that
is, in the spring of 966.
This was in the 480th year after the Exodus (1 Kings 6:1). Then Zif in the first year of the Exodus was
479 years earlier, in the spring of 1445 B.C., with the Exodus in the preceding month (Abib, 1445), and
the crossing of the Jordan 40 years later (Joshua 5:6, 10) in 1405 B.C. Of the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, 40
are to be deducted for the reign of Saul (Acts 13:21), 40 for the reign of David (1 Kings 2:11), and 4 from
the reign of Solomon. These 84 years deducted from the 480 years leave the coronation of Saul in the
396th year from the Exodus, or the 356th from the invasion of Canaan, giving us the years 1405-1051/50
B.C. for the period from Joshua to Samuel.
106
Another chronological peg is provided by a statement made by the judge Jephthah at the beginning of his
term of office, that Israel had then “dwelt in Heshbon and her towns ... three hundred years” (Judges
11:26). These 300 years go back to the conquest of this area under the leadership of Moses, during the last
year of his life (see Deuteronomy 2:26-37). This statement requires that the conquest under Joshua and
the elders, together with the judgeships of Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah and Barak, Gideon, Tola,
and Jair, as well as the intervening periods of oppression, be included within the 300 years between the
conquest and the time of Jephthah.
To fit these periods into the 300 years does not present great difficulties, since it is reasonable to assume
that some judges ruled contemporaneously—one perhaps in Transjordan and another in western Palestine,
or one in the north and another in the south. It is also possible that some tribes in one part of the country
enjoyed rest and security at a time when other tribes were oppressed. This is, for example, indicated in the
oppression by the Canaanite king Jabin of Hazor, which was terminated by the victory of Deborah and
Barak over Sisera, captain of Jabin’s army (Judges 4). In Deborah’s song of victory several tribes were
rebuked for having failed to assist their brethren in the struggle for liberation from the tyranny of the
oppressor (Judges 5:16, 17). These tribes probably saw no need for risking life so long as they themselves
enjoyed a peaceful existence, as was the case for 80 years after Ehud liberated them from the oppression
of the Moabites and Amalekites (Judges 3:30).
From Jephthah to Saul’s coronation was 57 years, according to chronological statements of the Bible.
While Jephthah ruled over the eastern tribes, ending an 18-year oppression of the Ammonites, the
Philistines began oppressing those in the west. They captured the ark in Eli’s time, after it had been at
Shiloh for 300 years. During the time of this Philistine oppression, Samson harassed the pagan oppressor
and began “to deliver Israel” (Judges 13:5). Samuel was probably also a contemporary of Samson, the
latter operating in the south west, the other in the mountains of central Palestine (1 Samuel 7:16, 17).
Samuel was the last judge to guide Israel wisely. For a long time he was the sole leader of his people
before the first king, Saul, was chosen.
The relatively fixed chronology of Egypt during this period, and several key dates in the Biblical
chronology, permit an experimental reconstruction of the period of the judges that leads to the following
chronological synchronisms:
TENTATIVE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES
Eighteenth Dynasty
Invasion of Canaan 1405 Amenhotep III 1412-1375 Hattushilish II
Israel under Joshua 1405-1364 Ikhnaton, Tuthaliya II
and the elders Smenkhkare
1387-1366 Arnuwanda II
107
Othniel’s liberation 1356 Tutankhamen, 1366-1353 Shubbiluliuma
from Chushan Eye
rishathaim’s 8—year
oppression
Rest of 40 years 1356-1316 Harmhab 1353-1320
Nineteenth
Dynasty
Arnuwanda II
Ramses I 1320-1319 Murshilish I
Seti I 1319-1299
Ehud’s liberation 1298 Seti in Palestine 1319
from 18 years of
Moabite oppression
Ramses II 1299-1232 Mutallu
80 years’ rest of 1298-1218 Battle at Kadesh 1295
southern and eastern
tribes
Deborah and Barak’s | 1258 Urhi-Teshub
liberation after
Jabin’s 20 years of
oppression in the
north
Hattushilish III
Rest in the north 1258-1218 Last weak Hittite
kings
Gideon’s liberation 1211 Merneptah and 1232-1200 End of Hittite
from 7-year other weak kings kingdom about
Midianite oppression 1200
Twentieth Dynasty
Gideon’s rule 1211-1171 Ramses III 1198-1167
Abimelech’s kingship | 1171-1168 War against 1194-1191
over Shechem
Peoples of the Sea
108
Tola, Jair, Jephthah, 1168-1074 Ramses IV-XI 1167-1085
Ibzan, Elon, Abdon
Beginning of 1119
Philistine oppression
Samson’s exploits 1101-1081 Twenty-first
Dynasty
Ark taken, Eli’s death | 1099
Battle at Ebenezer, 1079 (High priests of
Philistines defeated Amen as kings of
Egypt)
Samuel judge 1079-1050 1085-950
The Peoples of Canaan and Their Culture - The earliest, aboriginal population of Palestine was non-
Semitic, as is evident from the names of the oldest settlements, which are non-Semitic. Toward the end of
the second millennium B.C., the Amorites invaded Canaan and for centuries formed its ruling class. The
early Hittites, of whom only traces are recognizable in the texts coming from the time of their later empire
period, also settled in certain parts of Palestine, as did the Hurrians, especially in the south. Of the 11
peoples called Canaanites in Genesis 10:15-19, the Hittites and Amorites have already been mentioned.
Six of the others lived in Syria and Phoenicia; namely, the Sidonians and the Zemarites on the coast; the
Arkites, with their capital Irqata, of the Amarna Letters, north of Tripoli; the Sinites, whose capital Siannu,
mentioned in Assyrian records, is still unidentified; the Arvadites, with their capital Arvad in northern
Phoenicia; and the Hamathites in inland Syria. Of the remaining three Canaanite tribes, the Jebusites,
Girgashites, and Hivites, nothing is known from extra-Biblical sources.
All these peoples, living in a country situated between the two great civilizations of antiquity—Egypt in
the south and Mesopotamia in the north—were strongly influenced by the cultures of those countries.
Although Palestine and Syria had lived under the political Odominion of Egypt for centuries by the time
of the Hebrew invasion, the cultural influences of Mesopotamia were stronger than those of Egypt. The
reason for this strange phenomenon may lie in ethnic ties. Since all these peoples spoke Semitic
languages closely related to those spoken in Babylonia and Assyria, they may have been more attached to
the eastern culture than to that of their political overlords. Hence, we find that the Babylonian language
and script were used in all correspondence between the different city rulers, and between them and the
Egyptian court. The clay tablet served them as writing material, as it did their eastern neighbors. That the
art of writing was extensively practiced is evident from the fact that cuneiform texts have been found in
various Palestinian excavations, such as Shechem, Taanach, Tell el—Hest, and Gezer, and from the
hundreds of Amarna Letters which, although they were discovered in Egypt, originally came from
Palestine and Syria.
109
Also, a new, alphabetic script, probably invented in the mining region of Sinai toward the end of the
patriarchal period, was beginning to be used more extensively in the period under discussion. Short
inscriptions written in alphabetic script have been found at Lachish, Beth-shemesh, Shechem, and
elsewhere. They suggest that the people of that time were eager to write and were using the new script,
because of its obvious advantages over the difficult and cumbersome cuneiform or hieroglyphic scripts
with their many hundreds of characters.
The excavation of Palestinian cities dating from the period before the Israelites entered the country shows
that the population had attained a high level of craftsmanship, especially in the building of city rock
tunnels. The Jebusites, for example, dug a vertical shaft inside the city of Jerusalem, to a depth on a level
with the spring Gihon, which was some distance outside the city in the Kidron Valley. From the bottom
of this shaft they dug a horizontal passage to the spring, through which they were able to secure water
from the spring in a time of emergency without leaving the city.
A magnificent water tunnel was also excavated at Gezer, consisting of a gigantic staircase about 219 ft.
long cut out of solid rock. This tunnel is 23 ft. high at the entrance and about 13 ft. wide, but diminishes
greatly toward the end. The roof is barrel shaped, and follows the slope of the steps. It ends at a large
spring 94 1/2 ft. underneath the rock surface, and 130 ft. below the present surface level. The toolmarks
show that the work was done with flint tools, and the contents of the debris reveal that the tunnel fell into
disuse not long after the Hebrew invasion. How the ancient citizens of Gezer knew that they would strike
a powerful spring at the end of their tunnel is still a mystery.
These engineering feats, which demonstrate the high level of material culture of the Canaanites at the
time of the Hebrew invasion, are examples of many Canaanite accomplishments recently come to light.
The Religion and Cult Practices of the Canaanites - Though it is true that the pre-Israelite population
of Palestine had already attained a high cultural level by the time of the conquest, their religious concepts
and practices were most degrading. The excavation of Canaanite temples and sacred places has brought to
light many cult objects of Canaanite origin. At Ras Shamrah, ancient Ugarit, many Canaanite texts of a
mythological nature have been found. Written in an alphabetic cuneiform script, they have shed much
light on the language, poetry, and religion of the Canaanites of the middle of the second millennium B.C.
They constitute our main source of information on the religion of the land Israel invaded and conquered.
Palestine seems to have had a great number of open-air sanctuaries, called bamoth, “high places,” in the
Bible. The Israelites were so attracted by these “high places” that they took them over and dedicated them
to God, in spite of His explicit command that He be worshiped at one place only, the place where the
sanctuary was situated (Deuteronomy 12:5, 11). Various prophets denounced these pagan places of
worship (Jeremiah 7:31; 19:13; 32:35; Hosea 4:12, 13, 15; Amos 2:8; 4:4, 5), but it was most difficult to
wean the people away from them. Even some of the best kings—Amaziah, Uzziah, and Jotham, for
example—did not destroy them (2 Kings 14:3, 4; 15:4, 34, 35).
One of the best-preserved high places excavated in Palestine was found at Gezer, about halfway between
Jerusalem and the coast. It was an open place, without any traces of building activity. However, it
contained several caves, of which some were filled with ash and bones, probably the remains of sacrifices,
since the bones were of men, women, children, infants, cattle, sheep, goats, and deer. Two of the caves
were connected by a narrow winding tunnel, so that one of them could be used as a sacred place where
110
the inquiring worshiper might consult an oracle. Every whispered word spoken in the smaller cave can be
heard clearly in the larger one. It is not impossible that a cult object, perhaps an idol, once stood in front
of the hole in the wall that connected the two caves, and that the worshipers imagined they received
answers to their prayers in this place. Similar oracle places are known to have existed in Greece and
Mesopotamia. In the middle of the main cave was a large block of stone, on which lay the skeleton of an
infant, perhaps the remains of the last child sacrificed in this place.
Aboveground a row of 10 stone pillars was found. The tallest of these pillars is almost 11 ft. high, the
shortest, 5 1/2 ft. In Hebrew such a stone pillar is called massebah, “image” (see Levites 26:1;
Deuteronomy 16:22; Micah 5:13), more correctly, “pillar” (RSV). It is not certain whether these pillars
were connected with sun worship, or whether they were symbols of fertility representative of the “sacred”
phallus erectus. Several altars were also connected with the high place, and on the rock floor were many
cup-shaped holes probably used for the reception of libations, or “drink offerings.”
Another well-preserved high place has been found on one of the mountains near Petra, the capital of the
Edomites. Although this sacred place is of a much later date (1st century B.C.), it probably differed little
from similar places of earlier times. A great altar was cut out of the virgin rock. A stairway of six steps
leads up to its fire hearth. In front of the altar is a great rectangular court, with an elevated platform in the
middle, where the slaughtering of the sacrifice took place. A nearly square water tank has been hewn out
of the rock, for use in connection with ablution rituals. This high place also has characteristic cups for
pouring out libation offerings, and nearby there are obelisk-shaped standing pillars without which a high
place apparently would have been incomplete.
Canaanite temples have also been excavated in Palestinian cities, such as Megiddo and Beth-shan. These
sacred structures usually contain two rooms; the inner with a raised platform on which the cult image
originally had stood served as the main sanctuary. However, the Canaanite cult was not limited to temples
and high places. Numerous small stone altars found in Palestine show that the people had private shrines
where sacrifices were offered. These stone altars were usually hewn out of one block of stone. The hearth
was on the upper part, with four horns at the corners. Cult images have been found in great numbers in
every Palestinian excavation. Most of these are little figurines representing a nude goddess with the sex
features accentuated, showing that they were connected with the fertility cult, around which much of the
Canaanite worship centered.
Canaanite Deities - At the head of the Canaanite pantheon stood El, called “the father of years,” also “the
father of men,” who was symbolized by a bull. In spite of his being the highest titular god, he was thought
to be old and tired, and hence weak and feeble. According to a later Phoenician scholar, Philo of Byblos,
El had three wives, Astarte, Asherah, and Baaltis (probably Anath), who were at the same time his sisters.
Also in the Ugaritic texts, Asherah is attested as El’s wife.
As patron of the sea, Asherah is commonly called “Asherah of the Sea,” but also “creatress of the gods,”
and “Holiness,” in both Canaan and Egypt. She was usually represented in pictures and on reliefs as a
beautiful nude prostitute standing on a lion and holding a lily in one hand and a serpent in the other. She
seems to have been worshiped under the symbol of a tree trunk, “groves” in the KJV (2 Kings 17:10). She
found ready acceptance among the Israelites, who seem to have worshiped cult symbols dedicated to
Asherah almost continuously during the pre-exilic period, for they were in a deplorable state of apostasy
most of the time.
111
Another important Canaanite goddess was Astarte, Heb. ‘Ashtoreth’, “the great goddess who conceives
but does not bear.” She is depicted as a nude woman astride a galloping horse, brandishing shield and
lance in her hands. The Phoenicians attributed to her two sons, named according to Philo of Byblos,
Pothos, “sexual desire,” and Eros, “sexual love.” Astarte plaques of a crude form are numerous in
Palestinian sites excavated, but it is significant that they have not been discovered in any early Israelite
level. This is true of the excavations carried on at Bethel, Gibeah, Tell en—Nasbeh, and Shiloh, showing
that the early Israelites shunned the idols of the Canaanites.
Anath, the third major goddess of the Canaanites, was the most immoral and bloodthirsty of all deities.
Her rape by her brother Baal formed a standing theme in Canaanite mythology, finding entrance even into
the literature of the Egyptians. Nevertheless, she is always called “the virgin,” a curious comment on the
debased Canaanite concept of virginity. Her thirst for blood was insatiable, and her warlike exploits are
described in a number of texts. It is claimed that she smote the peoples of the east and the west, that she
lopped off heads like sheaves, and hands so that they flew around like locusts. She is then described as
binding the heads to her back, the hands to her girdle, exulting while plunging knee deep into the blood of
knights, and hip deep into the gore of heroes. In doing this, she found so much delight that her liver
swelled with laughter. Moreover, she enjoyed killing not only human beings but also gods. For example,
the death of the god Mot is attributed to her. He was cleft by her with a sword, winnowed with a fan,
burned in the fire, ground up in a hand mill, and finally sown in the fields.
Baal, although not the chief god, played a most important role in the Canaanite pantheon. He was
considered to be the son of El, the chief god, and a brother of Anath. Being held responsible for lightning,
thunder, and rain, he was thought to bring fertility to the land of Canaan, which was entirely dependent on
rain for agricultural purposes. At the beginning of the dry season, his devotees supposed, Baal was
murdered by the evil god Mot, and the annual feast of his resurrection, probably at the time of the first
rain, was an occasion of great rejoicing and festivity. Baal is the chief figure of all the mythological
poetry of Ugarit, in fact, of all religious literature. When, in Elijah’s time, Israel had turned to Baal
worship, his impotence was clearly demonstrated by the withholding of rain for three years. God designed
His people to learn that the introduction of Baal worship would not increase the fertility of their land, but
would actually bring famine. At Mt. Carmel, Elijah gave a conclusive demonstration that Baal was
helpless as a rain god, indeed, that he was nonexistent.
Besides the gods named, there was a host of other deities with minor functions, but space makes it
impossible to give more than a cursory survey of the complex religion of the Canaanites, the various
exploits of the Canaanite gods, their lust for blood, their vices and immoral acts. However, it may suffice
to say that the Canaanite religion was simply a reflection of the morals of the people. A people cannot
stand on a higher moral level than their gods. If the gods commit incest, adultery, and fornication, if they
exult in bloodshed and senseless murders, their worshipers will not act differently. It is therefore not
astonishing to learn that ritual prostitution of both sexes was practiced in the temples, that in these “sacred”
houses homosexuals formed recognized guilds, and that on feast days the most immoral orgies imaginable
were held in the temples and high places. We also find that infants were sacrificed on altars or buried
alive to appease an angry god, that snake worship was widespread, and that the Canaanites wounded and
mutilated themselves in times of grief and mourning, a practice that was prohibited among the Israelites
(Levites 19:28; Deuteronomy 14:1).
112
Effects of Canaanite Religion - How their religious thinking influenced the Canaanites’ way of life is
well illustrated by the story of Naboth’s death at the hand of Jezebel for refusing to give up his vineyard
to Ahab (1 Kings 21). When Ahab’s request was rejected by Naboth, the king was deeply offended and
grieved, but he saw no reason for doing anything against Naboth. His wife, however, a Phoenician
princess and passionate worshiper of Canaanite gods and goddesses like Baal and Asherah, immediately
proposed a way to have Naboth killed and his property impounded.
In Ugaritic literature, a similar story is found. The goddess Anath desired to possess a beautiful bow
belonging to Aghat. She requested him to give the bow to her in return for gold and silver. When Aghat
refused to part with his bow and advised her to have one made for herself, she tried to change his mind by
promising him eternal life. This being to no avail, she plotted his destruction and secured possession of
the coveted bow. We do not know whether Jezebel knew this story, and whether she was influenced by it
or not, but it is not strange that a woman who was educated in an environment where such stories were
told about the gods would have no scruples about applying similar means to achieve her purpose.
Because of the depravity of the Canaanites, Israel was commanded to destroy them. An understanding of
the religion and immorality connected with Canaanite worship explains God’s severity toward the people
who practiced it.
The Crossing of the Jordan River - Bible critics declare that the story of Israel’s crossing the Jordan is
an incredible myth, that it would be utterly impossible that the river should cease its flow for the space of
time required for so vast a multitude to pass over. The fact is, history records at least two instances during
the past 700 years when the Jordan suddenly ceased flowing and many miles of the river bed remained
dry for a number of hours. As the result of an earthquake, on the night preceding December 8, A.D. 1267,
a large section of the west bank opposite Damieh fell into the river, completely damming its flow for 16
hours. This is the very location where, according to the Bible record, “the waters which came down from
above stood and rose up upon an heap” (see on Joshua 3:16). Near Tell ed—Damiyeh, the Biblical city of
Adam, not far from where the Jabbok flows into the Jordan, the river valley narrows into a gorge that
makes such an occurrence as the complete blocking of the river a comparatively simple matter.
On July 11, 1927, the river ran dry again. A landslide near the ford at Tell ed—Damiyeh, caused by a
severe earthquake, carried away part of the west bank of the river, thus blocking its flow for 21 hours and
flooding much of the plain around Tell ed—Damiyeh. Eventually, these waters forced their way back into
the usual channel. For historical data on these two instances see John Garstang and J. B. E. Garstang, The
Story of Jericho [1940], p. 136, 137; D. H. Kallner-Amiram, Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. I [1950-
1951], pp. 229, 236.
In the light of this evidence critics, reversing themselves, will no doubt now wish to dismiss the Jordan
miracle of Joshua’s day as simply a natural phenomenon, the result of an earthquake. Any explanation, no
matter how incredible, seems better to some men than admitting that God performs miracles. We would
ask: How could Joshua know a day ahead that an earthquake would block the river 20 miles upstream?
Even more incredible, how could he know the exact moment of the earthquake, in order to direct the
priests bearing the ark to march forward so that their feet would reach the riverbank just when the water
ceased to flow (see Joshua 3)? Are these Bible critics able to produce earthquakes? Or can they even
predict the hour or the day when one will occur and regulate its effects so as to accomplish their
objectives? The answer is No And this resounding No wipes out forever their foolish objections to the
113
simple Bible statement that a miracle occurred. Whether or not God caused an earthquake upon this
occasion, we know not; we do know that He shakes the earth and makes it tremble (Psalms 60:2; Isaiah
2:19, 21) and that the elements fulfill His will (Psalms 148:8). But the very shaking of the earth, though
described by men as an earthquake, is in this case of the Jordan truly a miracle.
The Invasion of Canaan Under Joshua - Jericho was the first city that blocked the way of the invading
Hebrews. The Jericho of Joshua’s time has since the Middle Ages been identified with the mound Tell es—
Sultan, which is situated close to modern Jericho and not far from the river Jordan. In excavating the
ancient ruins of the city Prof. John Garstang found the remains of city walls that showed signs of
destruction he attributed to an earthquake. Various reasons led him to the conclusion that he had found the
ruins of Joshua’s Jericho. But further excavations, in the 1950’s, under the direction of Dr. Kathleen M.
Kenyon, yielded evidence that would assign those walls to an earlier century and uncovered no remains
that could be assigned to Joshua’s time except a portion of a house and some pottery in the tombs outside
the city indicating burials there in the 14th century. Unfortunately, the top levels of that mound have been
so badly destroyed, particularly by erosion, that the later remains have been virtually obliterated. It is
questioned whether the site will ever provide archeological evidence that will shed light on the Bible story
of the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6).
From the Bible, however, we know that this city, the first one conquered by the Israelites, fell as the result
of a divine act of judgment that the Canaanites had brought upon themselves. The strongly fortified city
was suddenly destroyed and its contents and population—with the exception of Rahab and her family—
were given to the flames.
The next city taken after the fall of Jericho was the little town of Ai (Joshua 8). Archeologists have
identified Ai with the ruins of et—Tell, excavated during three seasons under Mme. Judith Marquet-Krause,
from 1933 to 1935. However, this identification cannot be correct, since the city uncovered was one of the
largest of ancient Palestine, whereas the Bible speaks of Ai as a place much smaller than Jericho (see
Joshua 7:3). Furthermore, excavation has shown that et—-Tell was destroyed several centuries before the
Israelite conquest, and had been in ruins for hundreds of years when Jericho fell to the Israelites. However,
as Vincent has proposed, it is possible that the city ruins served as a habitation for a small population in
the time of Joshua, because the name Ai means “ruin.” This view may be correct, or the real location of
the town may yet be discovered.
The Conquest of Central Canaan - With the fall of Jericho and Ai the central part of Canaan lay open
before the invaders. When the Israelites proceeded inland they found to their consternation that they had
been deceived by the inhabitants of Gibeon and other cities, with whom they had but a short time
previously concluded an alliance of mutual assistance, not knowing that their new allies were inhabitants
of Canaan. Hence, the Israelites could not take their cities, and were even obliged to assist them when
they were attacked by neighboring city kings who resented the Gibeonite alliance with Israel (Joshua 9).
To fulfill a command previously given by Moses, the Israelites went to Shechem, built an altar, and
inscribed the law on a plastered stone monument (see Deuteronomy 11:29-32; Deuteronomy 27:1-8;
Joshua 8:32-35). Half of the people stood on Mt. Ebal and the other half on Mt. Gerizim, while the
blessings and curses prescribed by Moses were read to them. The Bible does not explain how it was
possible for the Israelites to take possession of the region of Shechem, in the central part of the country.
The impression, however, is gained that no hostilities preceded their taking possession of this section of
114
the land. Although the Bible is silent concerning events that led to the surrender of Shechem, an Amarna
Letter (No. 289) written a few years later by the king of Jerusalem to Pharaoh probably contains
information as to how the Israelites gained possession of the Shechem region. In this letter, the king of
Jerusalem complains that the Habiru (Hebrews) had become so strong that there was danger that he and
other kings who still withstood them would have to surrender their own cities as Shechem had been
surrendered. The significant passage reads, “To us the same thing will happen, after Labaja and the land
of Sakmi [Shechem] have given [all] to the Habiru [Hebrew].” There is therefore reason to conclude that
the king of Shechem followed the example of the Gibeonites and surrendered without a fight.
In order to punish those cities that had voluntarily surrendered to the Israelites, the Amorite king of
Jerusalem made an alliance with four other princes of southern Palestine and threatened to take Gibeon.
Responding to an urgent Gibeonite plea for help, Joshua marched against the five kings and defeated their
armies in the memorable battle of Azekah and Makkedah, for which the day was lengthened in response
to Joshua’s prayer. The five kings fell into Joshua’s hands and were killed, and in the ensuing campaign a
number of Canaanite cities in the south were taken. However, no attempt was made either to annihilate
the defeated populations or to occupy their cities. On the contrary, the Israelites, after taking Canaanite
cities, apparently returned them to their inhabitants, and retreated to their camp at Gilgal on the Jordan
(Joshua 10).
Later, a campaign against a hostile alliance under the leadership of the king of Hazor, in the north, was
undertaken. In the resulting battle of Merom (Lake Huleh) the Israelites were once more victorious.
Although they destroyed Hazor completely and pursued their fleeing enemies, they made no attempt at
permanent occupation of this part of the country, but left it to their defeated foes as they had the southland
(Joshua 11).
The only other military campaigns carried out during the period of the conquest were those of Caleb
against Hebron, of his brother Othniel against Debir (Joshua 14:6-15; Joshua 15:13-19; Judges 1:10-15),
and of the tribes of Judah and Simeon against Jerusalem (Judges 1:3-8). However, many of the cities
taken during the several campaigns were not occupied, as, for example, Jerusalem (see Judges 1:8); cf.
verse 21 and 2 Samuel 5:6-9, Taanach (see Joshua 12:21; cf. Judges 1:27), Megiddo (see Joshua 12:21; cf.
Judges 1:27), Gezer (see Joshua 12:12; cf. 1 Kings 9:16), and others. The Biblical records tell also that
whole regions, such as Philistia, Phoenicia, and northern and southern Syria (Joshua 13:2-6), remained
unoccupied.
The Conquest of Canaan a Gradual Process - The conclusion derived from these different statements is
that during the period of the conquest an attempt was made only to gain a foothold. Various local kings
and coalitions were defeated, because they contested the right of the Hebrews to settle in western Canaan.
However, no serious attempts seems to have been made by the Israelites to dislocate all the Canaanites
from their cities and strongholds, although a few cities were definitely taken into possession at that time.
Having spent the last 40 years in the desert as nomads, the Hebrews seem to have been satisfied to settle
down as tent dwellers in Canaan. As long as they found pastures for their cattle and were not molested by
the native inhabitants, they had no desire to live in fortified cities like the Canaanites. Though Joshua
divided the country among the 12 tribes, this division was largely in anticipation of their occupying fully
the respective areas. This can clearly be seen from a study of the lists given in Joshua 15 to 21, in which
115
numerous cities are mentioned that were not possessed until centuries later. However, as the Hebrews
became stronger, they made the Canaanites tributary (Judges 1:28) and eventually dispossessed them.
This process was gradual and took centuries, not being complete before the time of David and Solomon.
It is possible that in Acts 13:19, Paul refers to this long period of conquest, from Joshua to Solomon.
According to the earliest New Testament manuscripts, this text reads, “When he had destroyed seven
nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance, for about four hundred and fifty
years” (RSV), meaning that it took them about 450 years before the whole land was actually taken into
possession as an inheritance.
This picture of a gradual conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews, from piecing together all the Scriptural
evidence, is supported by historical evidence, as can be learned from the Amarna Letters and other extra-
Biblical sources of that period and the ensuing centuries. The Amarna Letters, all written during the first
half of the 14th century B.C., give us a good picture of what happened during that time. Many of these
letters originated in Palestine and testify vividly to the chaotic conditions existing in the country,
according to Canaanite views.
Most instructive are the letters of Abdu-Kheba, the king of Jerusalem, who complained bitterly that the
king of Egypt turned a deaf ear to his petitions for assistance, since the Habiru—probably the Hebrews
(see on Genesis 10:21; Genesis 14:13)—-gaining power in the country, while he and other local rulers of
the land were fighting a losing battle against them. In one letter (No. 271), he wrote: “Let the king, may
Lord, protect his land from the hand of the Habiru, and if not, then let the king, my Lord, send chariots to
fetch us, lest our servants smite us.” Venting his chagrin over the fact that all his pleas had been
unsuccessful, and that he had received neither weapons nor forces, he asked in all earnestness: “Why do
you like the Habiru, and dislike the [faithful] governors?” (No. 286). He warned the Pharaoh in the same
letter: The “Habiru plunder all the lands of the king. If there are archers [sent to assist him in his fight] in
this year the lands of the king, my Lord, will remain [intact], but if there are [sent] no archers, the lands of
the king, my Lord, will be lost.” He then added a few personal words to the scribe who would read the
letter to the Pharaoh, asking him to present the matter in eloquent words to the king, since all the
Palestinian lands of the Pharaoh were being lost.
These few quotations from the letters of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem, which could be multiplied many
times, may suffice to show how the Canaanites themselves viewed the political conditions of their country
during the time of the conquest and immediately after the period described in the book of Joshua. These
letters reveal that many Canaanite princes, like those of Jerusalem, Gezer, Megiddo, Accho, Lachish, and
others, were still in possession of their city states decades after the Hebrews had crossed the Jordan, but
that they were in mortal fear that their days were numbered, and that the hated Habiru would take their
thrones and possessions.
This picture agrees well with that gained from a study of the Biblical records. However, the names of the
kings of the Amarna Letters are not the same as those mentioned in the Bible as rulers of the same cities.
The king of Jerusalem is called Adoni-zedec in Joshua 10:1, but Abdu-Kheba in the Amarna Letters.
Gezer’s king was Horam, according to Joshua 10:33, but Yapahu, according to the Amarna Letters, etc.
This difference is easily accounted for if the time element is taken into consideration. The Canaanite
kings mentioned in Joshua were defeated and killed by the Hebrews very soon after the invasion of the
116
country began in 1405 B.C., whereas the kings mentioned in the Amarna Letters lived several years later,
when the Hebrews had settled down in the country, and taken possession of several regions.
That some of the cities already mentioned, like Jerusalem, Gezer, Megiddo, and others, remained in the
hand of native princes or Egyptian governors for centuries after the invasion of the Hebrews is attested
not only in the Bible but also by other records. The important Canaanite fortress of Beth-shan, for
example, is mentioned in Judges 1:27 as an unconquered city among those allotted to Manasseh by
Joshua. This fact is corroborated by a notice in an Amarna Letter (No. 289) that the ruler of Gath had a
garrison in Beth-shan, which means that the Israelites could not have possessed the city at that time.
Toward the end of the 14th century Seti I of Egypt occupied the city, during his first Asiatic campaign,
and erected victory steles in its temples. The presence of a similar stele of Ramses II and other Egyptian
monuments of the 13th century B.C. excavated in recent years in the ruins of Beth-shan, prove,
furthermore, that this city remained in Egyptian hands for a long time while the Hebrews occupied great
parts of the land. The same is true of Megiddo and some other cities.
The period of the Judges - This period of approximately 300 years has been well characterized in the
closing words of the book of Judges (chapter 21:25) as a time when “every man did that which was right
in his own eyes.” It was a period of alternating strength and weakness, politically and religiously. Having
gained a foothold in the mountainous parts of Canaan, the people of Israel lived among the nations of the
country. They established their sanctuary at Shiloh, where it remained for the greater part of the period.
Most of the people lived like nomads in tents, and possessed few of the cities of the country. They were
split up into tribal units and lacked national unity, which would have given them strength to withstand the
many foes about them on all sides. The song of Deborah shows clearly that even in times of crisis and
dire need some tribes remained aloof from their afflicted brethren, if they themselves were not affected by
the oppressors.
Living thus among the Canaanites the Hebrews were brought into close contact with the religion of the
country and its cult system. This seemed so attractive to many that great sections of the people accepted
the Canaanite religion. The repeated periods of apostasy were always followed by periods of moral
weakness, a situation that provided their more powerful enemies an opportunity to oppress them. In such
periods of distress a strong political leader invariably arose and, driven by the Spirit of God, led His
people—in whole or in part—through repentance back to God. Being usually a military leader at the same
time, he will rallied one or more tribes around himself and liberated those that were oppressed. Each of
these great leaders was called a “judge,” shophet in Hebrew. This title included more power and authority
than the English word suggests. They provided spiritual and political leadership, as well as judicial and
military functions.
The Early Judges - The first of these judges was Caleb’s younger brother Othniel, who liberated his
nation from an eight-year oppression by the king Chushan-rishathaim of Mesopotamia, probably one of
the Mitami princes whose name has not yet been found outside the Bible—which is not at all strange in
view of the fact that Mitanni source material is fragmentary. This period probably coincided with the last
years of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt—the reigns of Smenkhkare, Tutankhamen, Eye, and
Harmhab—when one king followed another in rapid succession.
It was probably about this time that Seti I, the first strong Pharaoh of Egypt in many years, invaded
Palestine and crushed a Canaanite rebellion in the eastern part of the Valley of Esdraelon. That Canaanite
117
cities were restored to Egyptian suzerainty did not affect the Israelites, who probably had not taken part in
the rebellion, and possessed no cities the Egyptians could claim as their own. However, it is possible that
Seti I had an encounter with some Hebrews of the northern tribe of Issachar, because he mentions on a
poorly preserved monument found at Beth-shan, that the “Hebrews [‘Apiru] of mount Jarmuth, with the
Tayaru, were engaged in attacking the nomads of Ruhma.” Although Tayaru and Ruhma have not yet
been identified, Jarmuth was one of the cities that Joshua allocated to the Levites in the territory of
Issachar (Joshua 21:29). Seti I may thus have fought against some Hebrews of the tribe of Issachar,
perhaps punishing them for attacking his allies, but the consequences for the Hebrews seem not to have
been far reaching, or the Biblical records would have so indicated. However, it should never be forgotten
that the book of Judges, reporting the history of Israel during almost 300 years, contains only a
fragmentary record of all that happened during this long period.
Ehud, the second judge, liberated the southern tribes from an 80-year oppression by Moabites,
Ammonites, and Amalekites by killing Moabite king Eglon. The 80 years of rest that the southern tribes
enjoyed after Ehud’s heroic act coincided in part with the long reign of Ramses II of Egypt. This Pharaoh
marched through Palestine along the coastal road, which was not in Israelite hands, to meet the Hittite
king at Kadesh on the Orontes at the famous battle of Kadesh. Here, both Ramses and the Hittites claimed
victory. Otherwise, Ramses seems not to have been seriously concerned about his Asiatic possessions. He
kept garrisons in the Palestinian cities of Beth-shan and Megiddo, which lay in the Valley of Esdraelon,
and probably also in certain strategic coastal cities. So long as the Israelites did not contest his possession
of these cities, their settlement in the mountainous parts of Palestine was of no concern to the Pharaoh.
In several inscriptions, Ramses II does mention that Hebrew (‘Apiru) slaves were engaged in his various
building activities in Egypt; hence, we conclude that Hebrews occasionally fell into the hands of his army
commanders in Palestine. It is also possible that these Israelites were made slaves by the Canaanite king
Jabin of Hazor, when for 20 years during the reign of Ramses II he oppressed the Hebrews. The heroic
leadership of Deborah and Barak put an end to this unhappy situation.
Gideon’s Judgeship - The 80 years of rest that had followed Ehud’s liberation of Israel from Moabite
oppression in the south was broken by a Midianite oppression lasting 7 years. It was probably during this
period also that Merneptah, son of Ramses II, made the raid into Palestine of which he boasts in the
famous Israel Stele. Here he claims to have destroyed Israel, so that it had no “seed” left. His record
obviously reflects the usual Egyptian tendency to exaggerate, and his claim to have utterly destroyed
Israel is therefore not to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, it seems certain from his remarks that he
encountered Israelites somewhere in Palestine upon this occasion.
Gideon, one of the outstanding judges, liberated his people from Midianite oppression, smiting a great
foreign army with a small band of faithful, alert, and daring Israelite warriors. The story of his exploits
and judgeship reveals also that intertribal strife flared up from time to time, and that the people had a
strong desire for a unified leadership, expressed in their offer of kingship to Gideon—an honor he wisely
declined.
Momentous events took place during the 40 years of Gideon’s peaceful judgeship. While Israel lived in
the mountainous part of Palestine, the Peoples of the Sea moved along the coastal regions, during the
reign of Ramses III, in their unsuccessful attempt to invade Egypt. Bloody battles on land and sea were
fought during this time. The Egyptian victories over these invaders eventually turned the tide of this great
118
migration of peoples and saved Egypt from one of the gravest perils that ever threatened its national
existence, prior to the Assyrian invasion. Some of the defeated tribes again turned northward toward Asia
Minor, whence they had come. Others, however, settled in fertile coastal regions of Palestine. Among
these were the Tjekker, in the vicinity of Dor, to the south of Mt. Carmel in the lovely Plain of Sharon,
and the Philistines, who strengthened related tribes that had occupied some coastal cities of southern
Palestine for a long time. The Israelites, who may have followed with great anxiety the momentous events
that took place so close to their habitations, did not vet realize that these Philistines would soon become
their most bitter foes.
When Gideon died after a judgeship of 40 years, his son Abimelech, with the help of the people of
Shechem, usurped the rulership by killing all his brothers and proclaiming himself king. His rule,
however, lasted only three years, and ended, as it had begun, in bloodshed. It is questionable whether his
so-called kingdom extended its power beyond the vicinity of Shechem.
The Later Judges - After him came the judges, Tola of Issachar (23 years) and Jair of Gilead (22 years).
No important events are recorded of their time, a fact that seems to indicate that the 45 years of their
rulership were rather uneventful.
After Jair’s death, two oppressions began at approximately the same time, one in the east by the
Ammonites, which lasted for 18 years and was ended by the freebooter general, Jephthah, and one in the
west of 40 years’ duration by the Philistines. This Philistine oppression had more disastrous effects on the
Hebrews than any of the previous times of distress.
As already noted, Jephthah made an important chronological statement (Judges 11:26) at the time he
began his war of liberation against the Ammonites. He claims that by that time Israel had lived for 300
years in Heshbon and nearby cities which had been taken from the Amorite king Sihon under the
leadership of Moses, and that the Ammonites had no right to contest Israel’s possession of these cities.
Jephthah’s six years of judgeship must therefore have begun approximately 300 years after the end of the
40 years of desert sojourning, and hence about 1106 B.C.
While the eastern tribes were afflicted by the Ammonites those in the west endured the fury of the
Philistines. Having consolidated their position in the coastal region of southern Palestine, where they
were not molested by the extremely weak successors of Ramses III of Egypt, the Philistines turned their
attention toward the hinterland and subjugated the neighboring Israelite tribes, especially Dan, Judah, and
Simeon. This oppression began at the time when Eli was high priest, in whose household Samuel grew up
as a boy. Soon after the beginning of this oppression, Samson was born, and upon reaching manhood, he
harassed the oppressors of his nation for 20 years, until they took him captive. Endowed with supernatural
strength, Samson caused the Philistines much harm. If his character had been disciplined, he might have
become the liberator of Israel instead of dying an ignominious death. It may have been during those years
that the Philistines won the battle at Aphek and captured the ark, killing also the two sons of the high
priest Eli. This battle marked the lowest point in the history of Israel during the period of the judges, some
300 years after the tabernacle had been moved by Joshua to Shiloh. Hence, the date for this event is about
1100 B.C.
After the disastrous battle of Aphek, Samuel began his work as spiritual leader of Israel. However, he was
not immediately ready to wage a successful war against the Philistines, with their superior strength and
119
war techniques. The oppression went on for another 20 years, but ended with the victory of the Israelites
under Samuel at the battle of Ebenezer (1 Samuel 7:13). After Ebenezer, Samuel began a peaceful and
highly successful judgeship over Israel. This must have continued for about 30 years, until he bowed to
the popular demand for a king. Samuel’s sons, whom he had appointed as his successors, proved unfit as
leaders and were rejected by the people.
With Saul’s coronation as king of the entire nation the heroic age ended and a new era began. Prior to this
time Israel’s form of government was a theocracy, since the rulers were, presumably, appointed by God
Himself and led by Him in the performance of their task. The new form of government began as a
kingship with the ruler appointed by God, but soon developed into a hereditary monarchy. (The theocracy
formally ended at the cross.
NOTE: It is not possible to assign exact dates for the various judgeships and for other events of this period. The dates here given
are only suggestive. The dates given for Egyptian kings are approximately correct.
Conditions During the Time of the Judges - The sorry conditions prevailing in Palestine during most of
the time of the judges are also reflected in two literary documents from Egypt. These are so interesting
and enlightening that a short description of their contents must be given here. The first is a satirical letter
in which the journey of a mahar (an Egyptian envoy) through Syria and Palestine is described. The
document comes from the second half of the 13th century B.C., and may have been contemporary with
the Midianite oppression to which Gideon put an end.
The document describes the Palestinian roads as overgrown with cypresses, oaks, and cedars that
“reached to the heavens,” making travel difficult. It is stated that lions and leopards were numerous, a
detail reminiscent of Samson’s and David’s experiences (Judges 14:5); (1 Samuel 17:34). Twice, thieves
were encountered by the envoy. One night they stole his horse and clothing; on another occasion, his bow,
sheath knife, and quiver. Also, he met Bedouins, of whom he says that “their hearts were not mild.”
Shuddering seized him and his hair stood up, while his soul “lay in his hand.” However, not being himself
a model of morality, he was caught in an escapade with a native girl at Joppa, and paid for his freedom
only by selling his shirt of fine Egyptian linen.
This story, written in the form of a letter, whether true or fictitious, shows a remarkable knowledge of
Palestinian topography and geography. Among many other well-known places, it mentions Megiddo,
Beth-shan, Accho, Shechem, Achshaph, and Sarepta. The story vividly illustrates the state of insecurity
found in the country, where bad roads, robbers, and fierce-looking Bedouins were common. The
description of the sad conditions met in Palestine reminds one of the experiences of the traveling Levite
described in Judges 19, and the statement that “every man did that which was right in his own eyes”
(Judges 21:25).
The second story written in the first half of the 11th century B.C., at the height of the Philistine
oppression after the ark was taken in the battle of Aphek, describes the journey of Wenamon, an Egyptian
royal agent, to the Phoenician port city of Byblos to purchase cedarwood for the bark of Amen. Wenamon
was sent by the priest-king, Heri-Hor of Thebes, and had been given a divine statue of the god Amen to
protect him on the way and give him success in his mission. However, he was given only about 1 1/4 lb.
of gold and 7 3/4 lb. of silver as money to purchase the desired cedarwood.
120
Wenamon left Egypt by ship, but when he reached the Palestinian port city of Dor, which was in the
hands of the Tjekker, his gold and silver were stolen from him. He lodged a complaint with the local king,
who refused to take any responsibility for the theft. After Wenamon had spent 9 days in Dor without
finding either his stolen money or the thief, he stole about 7 1/2 lb. of silver himself, and then sailed for
Byblos. However, the king of Byblos refused for 29 days to see him, and ordered him out of his city. On
the 29th day after his arrival, one of the king’s pages had a visionary frenzy in the name of Amen and
advised the king to grant Wenamon an interview. During this interview, the king was extremely impolite,
and asked for official credentials, telling Wenamon that for a previous shipment of cedars 250 Ib. of silver
had been paid. He made it clear that he was the master of the Lebanon, that he had no obligations toward
Egypt, although he admitted that his people owed much to the culture of the Nile country.
The king of Byblos finally agreed to send a shipment of cedar to Egypt, and received a shipload of hides,
papyrus scrolls, royal linen, gold, silver, etc., from Egypt in payment. The desired cedars were then cut
and loaded, at which time the Phoenician king reminded Wenamon that a previous emissary had waited
17 years at Byblos and finally died there without getting his cedar. This was intended to point out to
Wenamon that in Asia the prestige of Egypt had dwindled to nothing, and that its ambassadors no longer
deserved the respect they had formerly been accustomed to receive.
When Wenamon was finally ready to leave the harbor of Byblos and set sail for Egypt, he found the
Tjyekker waiting with their ships to catch him and his load of cedarwood. He managed, however, to flee
with his ship to Cyprus, where he barely escaped death by the hands of unfriendly natives. Unfortunately,
the papyrus breaks off at this point of the narrative, and the rest of the story is therefore not known. It
must, however, have had a happy ending, or the Egyptians would not have written and preserved it.
The story of Wenamon’s mission is also instructive in that it highlights the chaotic political conditions of
Palestine during the period of the judges. It shows that Egypt had lost all authority in Syria, and that an
Egyptian envoy, whose arrival in former ages would have spread awe, could now be treated with
contempt and disdain. We see, furthermore, that traveling was insecure, that people robbed and were
robbed, and that no one was ever sure of his life.
Egypt in Decline—Dynasties Twenty-one to Twenty-five (1085—663 B.C.)
The period under discussion shows Egypt at a very low level. Source material is scarce, and great gaps
exist in our historical knowledge of this period. Also, Egyptian chronology for this period is uncertain,
and depends on brief Bible references and Mesopotamian records. Since but a few of the Egyptian kings
of this period are mentioned either in the Bible or in cuneiform sources, all dates preceding 663 B.C. are
only approximately correct.
Priest-Kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty (1085—950 B.C.) - The Twentieth Dynasty, the weak
Ramessides, ended about 1085 B.C. Tanis, in the eastern Delta, remained the political center. There,
Smendes, whose origin is obscure, managed to become king, while Heri-Hor, the high priest of Amen,
proclaimed himself king of Thebes, the earlier Upper Egyptian capital. The two rival kings had little
political power, and the cultural level of Egypt fell rapidly. Although a grandson of Heri-Hor married a
daughter of a king of Tanis, political unity was not achieved. The low ebb of Egypt’s political power
121
during this period is apparent from the treatment Wenamon received on his mission to Byblos, as already
noted. One of the last kings of this dynasty was probably Solomon’s Egyptian father-in-law (1 Kings 3:1).
The Libyan Twenty-second and Twenty-third Dynasties (950—750 B.C.) - It is unknown how the
change from the Twenty-first to the Twenty-second Dynasty occurred. The first king of the new dynasty,
Sheshonk, the Biblical Shishak, was a Libyan army commander, and may have usurped the throne about
950 B.C. During the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Dynasties Libyans had been brought to Egypt in
great numbers as prisoners of war. Many were then used as soldiers in the wars of Ramses III against the
Peoples of the Sea. They served a number of kings as mercenaries. Some achieved honor and office, as,
for instance, a family in Heracleopolis in the northern part of Upper Egypt, of whom several members
served as officers in the army and others became governors of Egyptian cities and districts.
When Sheshonk came to the throne, he was able to do away with the priestly dynasty at Thebes. Making
one of his own sons high priest of Amen, he once more bound Thebes, the religious center, to the
monarchy and achieved political unity in Egypt. The new king was engaged for several years in restoring
orderly conditions in the county, and was successful to a certain degree.
As soon as he had a free hand in Egypt, Sheshonk turned his attention to Asia, where he made a
determined effort to reconstitute the former empire. In this attempt, he was favored by the death of King
Solomon and the splitting up of the kingdom of Israel into two rival states. Sheshonk’s Palestinian
campaign in Rehoboam’s fifth year is briefly described in 1 Kings 14:25, 26, and 2 Chronicles 12:2-4.
The Egyptians invested and spoiled many Judean and Israelite cities, among them the rich city of
Jerusalem, whence Solomon’s treasures were removed to Egypt. Sheshonk erected victory steles in
Palestine. A fragment of one of these has been found at Megiddo, and a statute of the king was unearthed
in the excavations of Byblos. When Sheshonk returned to Egypt, he celebrated his triumph and had a list
of conquered cities engraved on one of the walls of the great Amen temple at Karnak, where about 100
names of Palestinian cities have escaped the destructive forces of nature and man during the past three
millenniums. Among these, we discover such well-known names as Taanach, Megiddo, Beth-shan,
Mahanaim, Gibeon, Beth-horon, Ajalon, and others. Although the campaign was a temporary success,
Sheshonk was not able to hold Asia and permanently force his will upon it. The attempt to reorganize the
Asian empire was a failure. Egypt lacked its former strength, and had definitely become a second-rate
power.
The location of the tombs of the kings of the Twenty-first to Twenty-third Dynasty was unknown until
Prof. P. Montet, the French excavator of the ruins of Tanis, discovered some royal tombs of the Twenty-
first and Twenty-second Dynasties in that city. Some of the tombs were unspoiled. However, they did not
contain such fabulous treasures as the tomb of Tutankhamen, although some beautiful gold and silver
objects came to light in these tombs. A very fine golden bracelet from the tomb of Sheshonk’s grandson
bears and inscription stating that it had been given to him by his grandfather. It may actually have been
made of gold and came into Sheshonk’s possession from the treasures of King Solomon. The tomb of
Sheshonk I has not yet been discovered. It may contain valuable information concerning his Asiatic
campaign.
Sheshonk’s successors of the Twenty-second as well as the Twenty-third Dynasty, probably all Libyans,
were weak kings. The 15 kings of the 2 dynasties reigned for about 200 years (C. 950-750 B.C.), but
Egypt was merely a shadow of its former self. It neither played a role in world politics nor produced any
122
works of architecture or art comparable to the products of earlier ages. Its real condition is fittingly
characterized a little later by Rab-shakeh, the Assyrian army commander of Sennacherib who said,
literally, to the men of Hezekiah, “You are relying now in Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will
pierce the hand of any man who leans on it. Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who rely on him” (2
Kings 18:21). Though his remarks actually referred to Egypt of the Twenty-fourth Dynasty, no words
could better describe the political weakness of the Libyan dynasties.
The Twenty-fourth Dynasty, of Sais (750—715 B.C.) - It is unknown how the Libyan rule of Tanis
ended, or how it was replaced by the short-lived Twenty-fourth Dynasty of native Egyptian princes, but
about 750 B.C. Lower Egypt found itself in the hands of Tefnakht of Sais, in the western Delta. Of this
king, it is known only that he attempted to conquer Upper Egypt, which, with the important city of
Thebes, was held by the Ethiopians.
Of Tefnakht’s son Bocchoris, as the Greeks called him—his Egyptian name was Bakenrenef—we have
hardly any contemporary information, but later Greek authors tell many stories about him. He was,
according to these sources, a wise king and a great lawgiver. After a short reign of five years (720-715
B.C.) he was deposed by the first king of the Ethiopian Dynasty and burned to death.
It is necessary to point out in this connection that we have only a very fragmentary knowledge concerning
conditions in Egypt during this time. It is possible that several kinglets in addition to Tefnakht and
Bocchoris ruled over sections of Lower Egypt. In 2 Kings 17:4, “So king of Egypt” is mentioned as
having induced Hoshea to revolt against Assyria. Although one Egyptian monument (in the Berlin
Museum) contains the hieroglyphic royal name “So,” and the Assyrian sources mention him under the
name of Sib’u, we have no further information about this king who probably ruled over a small area of the
Delta.
The Ethiopian Kings of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty (C. 715—663 B.C.) - Nubia, today partly in Egypt,
partly in Sudan, was generally called Ethiopia by classical authors. Hence, the Ethiopian kings of ancient
times were Nubians and did not come from the Abyssinian highland, as the term Ethiopian might indicate.
Nubia belonged to Egypt during most of its historical period up to the Twenty-first Dynasty. Although
Egyptian kings occasionally had to subdue rebellions, Nubia usually had been rather quiet and had caused
little trouble. However, the time of Egyptian rule ended in the 10th century B.C. during the time of the
weak rulers of the Twenty-first Dynasty, when Nubia shook off the Egyptian yoke and founded an
independent kingdom with its capital at Napata, near Mt. Barkal and the Fourth Cataract of the Nile. The
Egyptian religion, which had been introduced to Nubia during the many centuries of Egyptian rule, was
retained, and the Amen cult was practiced in a more conservative style than in Egypt itself.
In his excavation of Napata, the American Egyptologist G. A. Reisner uncovered pyramids, temples, and
palaces. He was able to reconstruct the history of Nubia from the 10th century to about 300 B.C. and to
give us the list of kings who ruled in Napata in unbroken sequence until the capital was moved for some
unknown reason to Meroé (about 130 miles [209 km.] north of Khartoum), where the Meroitic kingdom
existed until A.D. 355 and in turn gave way to the Abyssinian power of Axum.
After Nubia gained its independence in the 10th century B.C. and thereafter remained in isolation for
about 200 years, it looked with envious eyes toward Egypt, whose political feebleness obvious to
123
everyone. About 750 B.C., the Nubian king Kashta marched north and took all of southern Egypt,
including Thebes, the most famous and glorious of all Egyptian cities. The highest ecclesiastical power of
the Amen temple at Thebes was Shepenupet II, the daughter of King Osorkon III of the Twenty-third
Dynasty, called the “god’s wife.” The office of high priestess had already existed for a long time, and was
usually held by a princess of royal blood, by way of securing the loyalty of the priesthood of Amen to the
ruling house of Egypt. Kashta forced the officiating “god’s wife” to adopt his own daughter as her
successor, and thus bound the priesthood of Amen and the tremendous possessions of that god to his
dynasty.
Piankhi, the son and successor of Kashta, felt that his rule over Upper Egypt was threatened by Tefnakht
of Sais, for which reason he marched north and conquered the remaining part of Egypt. His campaign is
described on a great stele, containing one of the most detailed and interesting historical texts that has
come down to us. Although all Egypt was conquered by Piankhi, he withdrew from the Delta again and
left Tefnakht in possession of it. Shabaka, however, the next Ethiopian king, put an end to the Twenty-
fourth Dynasty by defeating and killing Bocchoris in 715 B.C., as has already been related.
Piankhi, having conquered all of Egypt, made Thebes his capital. It was the last time that the old and
venerated city became the center of Egyptian life and culture. Once more great building activities were
carried on, as in the best days of the Eighteenth Dynasty. However, the new glory lasted only a little a
little more than 50 years (715-663 B.C.), and came then to an inglorius end, as the Assyrians invaded
Egypt and destroyed Thebes.
Egypt in Decline - Piankhi’s successors were Shabakak, Shabataka, Taharka, and Tanutamon. According
to recently published documents Taharka came to the throne about 690 B.C., at the age of 20, as coregent
with his brother Shabataka. This co regency continued till the death of the latter six years later. From then
on Taharka was sole ruler until 664 B.C., when his nephew Tanutamon ascended the throne. Taharka is
known from the Bible under the name of Tirhakah (2 Kings 19:9). We are told there that Sennacherib,
when besieging Libnah in Judea, probably after 690 B.C., heard that Taharka was approaching with his
army to aid Hezekiah and save Judah from impending annihilation. However, there is no evidence that
Taharka really intervened actively in Hezekiah’s favor. The rumor may not have been true. It is actually
with reference to the Ethiopian Dynasty that the statement of Rabshakeh (2 Kings 18:21) was made, a
statement that was true not only at that time, but also later, in the time of Nebuchadnezzar.
Difficulties in other parts of the Assyrian Empire which required Sennacherib’s full attention elsewhere,
and the catastrophe Sennacherib’s army suffered in Palestine, save Egypt temporarily and postponed the
end that was evidently soon to come to the proud but feeble kingdom on the Nile.
Esarhaddon, the next Assyrian king, conquered Egypt in 670 B.C. for seven years made it an Assyrian
province. We have recovered the famous victory stele of Esarhaddon set up in the north Syrian site of
Zenjirli. It depicts the kings of Tyre and Egypt (Taharka) as prisoners of the king of Assyria, the former
being depicted as a larger figure than the latter, since the king of Tyre was considered more important
than the king of miserable Egypt.
On a stele found in Napata, Tanutamon, the last Ethiopian king who ruled over Upper Egypt, tells that a
dream led him to attempt the conquest of Egypt anew. He succeeded in winning most of Upper Egypt and
even took Memphis, the Lower Egyptian capital, but could not expel the Assyrian garrisons from the
124
Delta. His success was short-lived, however, and he had to retreat when Assurbanipal marched against
him and conquered Thebes. This city, the most beautiful of all ancient Egyptian cities, was completely
destroyed. Two of its tall obelisks were transported to Assyria to demonstrate to the Assyrians and the
world that a new day had come, and that the Egyptian power had been broken forever. The words of the
prophet Nahum reflect the tremendous impression that the destruction of Thebes, the queen of all ancient
cities, made on contemporaries (Nahum 3:8).
The Assyrian Empire (933—612 B.C.)
The Assyrian Empire period is only an episode in the long history of this world, but to the student of the
Bible it is of great importance because of the decisive role Assyria played in the history of the kingdoms
of Israel and Judah. This importance can be seen from the fact that Assyria and its people are mentioned
some 150 times in Scripture. Six illustrious Assyrian kings are mentioned by name in the Bible, and the
names of 10 Hebrews kings—6 of Israel and 4 of Judah—appear in the royal Assyrian inscriptions.
Furthermore, the fact that the kingdom of Israel came to its sad end at the cruel hands of the Assyrians,
and that Judah almost shared Israel’s fate, should be reason enough for a careful study of Assyrian history.
This enumeration of contacts between sacred and profane history at the time of the Assyrian Empire
period shows clearly how important is a knowledge of the history of that nation for a correct
understanding of the events that took place during the period of the Hebrew kings.
The homeland of Assyria was situated on the upper Tigris, north of the Little Zab, one of the eastern
tributaries of the Tigris. Thence, Assyria extended in a north westerly direction for about 80 miles along
the river Tigris. The Assyrians moved their capital from one place to another several times during their
history. Assur, the most ancient capital, was not far from the Little Zab, and on the west bank of the Tigris.
A short distance north was Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, founded by the king whose name it bore, Tukulti-Ninurta.
At the confluence of the Great Zab and the Tigris lay Calah, now called Nimrud, and farther to the north
Nineveh, the largest and most famous of Assyrian cities. This capital, about 50 miles from Assur, was
oblong in shape, with walls of an approximate total length of 8 miles and with 15 gates. A few miles to
the north of Nineveh lay the capital of Sargon II, Dur Sharrukin, now called Khorsabad.
The Assyrians were Semitic Akkadians, closely related to the Babylonians as far as race, language, and
civilization go. They were numerically a small nation, but distinguished themselves as ambitious
merchants, daring and courageous warriors, and prudent though ruthless political leaders and statesmen.
Assyria was stony, and lay near mountains where good stone could be quarried. Hence, much stone was
used for the building of monumental and public edifices such as palaces and temples. The Assyrians
became masters in the handling of stone, as the many huge slabs lining their palace and temple walls
show. However, this art is particularly apparent from the winged, human-headed bulls or lions that
flanked the city and palace gates. Each was hewn out of one block of stone and weighed about 40 tons.
The art of cutting stone was practiced not only in the handling of monumental reliefs and sculptures but
also in the engraving of smaller objects such as cylinder seals. These exhibit skilled craftsmanship.
Assyrian Religion - The religion of the Assyrians was similar to that of the racially related Babylonians;
in fact, many Babylonian deities were adopted and worshiped, as, for instance, Marduk, Ishtar, Tammuz,
and others. The chief god was Ashur, the ancient local god of the city that carried his name. He was
125
depicted as a winged sun that protected and guided the king, his principal servant, but was worshiped also
under the symbol of a tree representative of fertility. The influence of other nations was also apparent on
Assyrian religion. In this way, some peoples, such as the Amorites, gained power over the Assyrians
during the first half of the second millennium. Thus, the gods Dagan and Adad gained recognition. Other
conquerors of Assyria, like the Indo-European Hurrians of Mitanni, left behind them their religious
concepts. Hence, we find in Assyrian religion little that was purely national and much that had been
borrowed from other cultures.
In Assyria, the king was neither a god, like Pharaoh in Egypt, nor the representative of the god, as in
Sumeria. He was Ashur’s chief priest and general, who carried out his god’s desires and military
campaigns, periodically giving account of the faithful fulfillment of his duties through “letters to the god,”
of which some have been preserved to the present day.
Assyrian Chronology - The Assyrians invented a method of designating years that, in a modified form,
was later followed by the Greeks and the Romans. High officials, including the king, were appointed once
during life to serve for one year as limmu, an honorary office requiring the performance of no duties
except that of giving his name to the year in which he was limmu. The Greek equivalent of the Assyrian
limmu is the word eponym; hence, the chronological lists containing the names of limmu are called
Eponym Canons. These lists are of great value in reconstructing the chronology of Assyria, particularly
that of the period to 900 to 650 B.C.
Assyria Before Tiglath-pileser I (to 1112 B.C.) - The princes of Assur had been vassals of the ruling
dynasties of southern Mesopotamia when Illushuma (1850 B.C.), in the time of the dynasties of Isin and
Larsa, made himself independent and succeeded in extending his power over great areas that previously
belonged to his overloads. His son Erishum (1825 B.C.), and more so his great-grandson Sargon I (1780
B.C.), seem to have played with the idea of world dominion. This can be gathered from the name Sargon
bore, in imitation of the great hero and founder of the empire of Akkad, and also from his program of
political expansion. Successful military campaigns strengthened the young independent nation and
extended its territory. Business relations were opened with foreign countries, and trading colonies and
outposts were established. Through the archives of colonies in Asia Minor (the so-called Cappadocian
tablets) much information concerning the extent of Assyrian commercial activities has become available.
However, the short period of Assyrian independence ended soon after the death of Sargon I. Commercial
connections with Asia Minor were broken, and Assyria itself became a bone of contention between two
emerging powers, the Elamites and the Amorites. The Amorites Shamshi-Adad I (1749-1717 B.C.), who
claimed that his father Ilukapkapu had been king of Assur, succeeded in making himself king of Assyria.
Like his great contemporary, Hammurabi, the Amorite king of Babylon, Shamshi-Adad planned to
become sole under of Mesopotamia, as his title reveal, “King of the Universe” being the most significant
one. He conquered the great city of Mari on the Euphrates and made his son its king. A victory stele
found in the Syrian city of Mardin reveals, furthermore, that he also extended his power over northern
Syria. When he died, the strongest opponent of Hammurabi was gone. His son and later descendants were
not able to continue his policies, and Assyria degenerated once more into a second-rate power. It is not
certain that Hammurabi and his successors ever exercised sovereignty over Assyria.
Next came the Hurrians of Mitanni, who overran Assyria and made it part of their empire. The Assyrian
kings mentioned in the king lists for this period cannot have been more than vassals. It was Eriba-Adad
126
(1390-1364 B.C.) who began his reign as Mitanni’s vassal and referred to himself as priestly prince of
Assur. Upon the death of Tushratta and the collapse of Mitanni, he once more became a free and
independent king.
In Ashur-ubalit I (1364-1328 B.C.), Eriba-Adad’s son, we find once more an Assyrian ruler who sought
to advance the power of his country. He was a contemporary of the Egyptian revolutionary king Ikhnaton;
in fact, two of Ashur-ubalit’s letters to that Pharaoh have been found in the Amarna collection. In the first,
he calls himself merely king of the land Assur, but in the second, he designates himself as brother of the
Pharaoh. By this, he claims to be great king, having taken the place in world politics formerly held by the
king of Mitanni. Ashur-ubalit was an energetic ruler and knew how to achieve his aims. He occupied
Upper Mesopotamia as far as Carchemish, and forced Kassite Babylonia to recognize his supremacy over
southern Mesopotamia.
It was necessary, however, for the work of Ashur-uballit to be repeated several times by his successors
before Assyria’s power over all Mesopotamia was recognized even to a limited degree. Hence, we read in
the royal annals that successive kings led repeated military campaigns against Hanigalbat, the name by
which the land of Mitanni was known in later times. They fought also against the more powerful Hittites
to the west. The fortunes of war were not always on Assyria’s side, and territories that had been gained by
painful campaigns were often lost. However, these continual wars seem to have strengthened the martial
spirit of the numerically small people of Assyria, and gained for it the respect of other great nations. As a
result, the kings of the Hittites, Egypt, and Babylon were finally forced to recognize the little king of
Assur as “brother,” in acknowledgment of his claim to be a great king. Thus, the 13th century saw three
great Assyrian kings, Adadnirari I. Shalmaneser I, and Tukulti-Ninurta I.
Adadnirari I (1306-1274 B.C.), of whom long inscriptions are known, was a great conqueror. He defeated
Babylonia and established a new southern frontier of Assyria that incorporated the region of Kirkuk. He
fought against the Guti and Lullupi in the Zagros Mts., and overran all Hanigalbat, destroying its capital
and building and Assyrian palace there.
Shalmaneser I (1274-1244 B.C.) practically repeated the campaigns of his father, and also defeated eight
allied kings of the land of Urarti (later Urartu), the American region around Lake Van, in later times one
of the most formidable enemies of Assyria. Adadnirari founded the city of Calah and moved the capital
from Assur to the new city.
The next king, Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244-1207 B.C.), who again moved the capital to a new location, Kar-
Tukulti-Ninurta, was extremely temperamental and fanatical. He became the first Assyrian warrior-king
whose ruthless methods of warfare are also well known from the later empire period. Elaborate historical
records report his campaigns against Subartu in northern Mesopotamia, the Nairi lands of Urartu, where
he claims to have defeated 43 local kings, the Guti and Elamites in the eastern mountains, the Ahlamu
(Aramaeans) of the desert, and the Babylonian. He captured the Babylonian king and brought the sacred
Marduk statute of Babylon to Assur. However, his rule over Babylon was of only short duration, because
the Babylonians, supported by the Elamites, shook off the Assyrian yoke soon after the capture of their
city.
Tukulti-Ninurta’s end marks the conclusion of the first period of Assyrian conquests, which had now
lasted for about a century. Assyria then declined under a series of insignificant kings. There are no
127
indications that the Sea Peoples, which at this time subdued the Hittite empire and invaded Syria, had
anything to do with this period of Assyrian weakness, mostly during the 12 century B.C.
Tiglath-pileser I and Later (1113—933 B.C.) - The Assyrian ideal of world dominion found a worthy
champion in the person of Tiglath-pileser I (1113-1074 B.C.). The Assyrians apparently never lost sight
of this ideal, which from the 14th century to the 7th was pursued consistently whenever circumstances
were favorable. During the first years of his reign, Tiglath-pileser began to re-establish the earlier empire
of Tukulti-Ninurta I. He reported his accomplishments in the now-famous documents he deposited in the
foundation of the Anu and Adad temple at Assur, and which were used in 1857 to prove that the young
science of Assyriology had come of age. Copies of these texts were then given to four scholars who,
independently and correctly, translated each of them, thus proving that the riddle of cuneiform script had
been solved.
The king carried out campaigns in the northern Nairi lands, then went against the Mushki, who had
recently pushed east from Asia Minor. Eventually, he reached the Black Sea, and also forced Malatia in
Hanigalbat to pay tribute. After the completion of his northern campaigns, he turned southward, took the
Babylonian cities Dur-Kurigalzu, Sippar, Babylon, and Opis, but allowed the defeated Babylonians to
retain a certain amount of independence.
When Tiglath-pileser marched into Syria to cut cedars of Lebanon for his buildings, the Syrian and
Phoenician princes, among them those of Sidon and Byblos, paid tribute. However, Tyre, trusting in its
island impregnability, refused. Arvad invited the king to a trip on the Mediterranean, where he hunted a
sea monster. Even the Pharaoh of Egypt cautiously sent gifts to the powerful Assyrian monarch, among
them a crocodile, which the king publicly exhibited in Assur. However, Tiglath-pileser found it difficult
to keep back the pressure of the Aramaeans, who came against him in wave after wave.
This Assyrian king was a true empire builder, and his kingdom was at least equal in importance to those
of the Hittites of Egyptians of former ages. But there was one great difference between the former
empires and the new one. By those earlier empires vassals had been considered as human beings, and a
certain generosity was frequently shown toward defeated enemies. The Assyrians, however, had but one
aim—to subject every nation to the might of their god Ashur. Accordingly, they left their foes the choice
between unconditional subjection and annihilation.
The Aramaeans, whom Tiglath-pileser’s military genius held in check, proved too strong for his
successors. The Aramaeans met no resistance in Babylonia, and infiltrated more and more into the areas
that the Assyrians had claimed as their own. For almost a century and a half after Tiglath-pileser’s death
Assyria was pressed back to its home country on the Tigris and played the role of a secondary power,
while the Aramaeans pressed their conquest of Syria and northern Mesopotamia and founded numerous
city states. The Aramaean tribes of the south, better known as Chaldeans, in the meantime took over
Babylonia and formed a dynasty which, though frequently interrupted by the Assyrians during the
centuries that followed, nevertheless remained unbroken until the middle of the 6th century B.C.
The Resurrection of Assyria From Ashur-dan II to Shalmaneser II (933—824 B.C.) - Another
strong Assyrian king rose up in the person of Ashur-dan II (933-910 B.C.). As a worthy descendant to
Tiglath-pileser I, he reorganized, first of all, Assyria’s military and economic forces, and then began the
reconquest of the Aramaean parts of Mesopotamia. The royal annals tell of how the Assyrian kings
128
annually led their armies to the north and north west. The five kings following Ashur-dan II, Adadnirari II
(910-889 B.C.), Tukulti-Ninurta II (889-884 B.C.), Ashurnasirpal II (884-859 B.C.), and Shalmaneser III
(859-824 B.C.), each the son of his predecessor, seem to have been possessed by only one desire—the
defeat of the Aramaeans and the reconquest of their territory.
Perhaps no other century of antiquity saw so much bloodshed as the 9" and nowhere else were so many
lives sacrificed as in northern Mesopotamia and Syria during the reigns of the five aforementioned kings.
Hardly ever have treaties been concluded and broken so frequently as in this period. The people of the
subject nations, who repeatedly witnessed the murder of their loved ones and the destruction of their
homes and fields, seem to have considered the frequent Assyrian expeditions to be divinely ordained
plagues (see Isaiah 10:5), whereas the Assyrian kings on their part seem to have felt it a sacred duty to
avenge with fire and sword the continual rebellions of their subjects.
Adadnirari II, having conquered the land of Hanigalbat, including its capital, Nisibis, broke with the
custom of requiring annual tribute and made the land an Assyrian province. When Ashurnasirpal II
reconquered this country following another revolt, he did it with such inhuman cruelty that a revolt in this
region never again proved possible. He was successful in extending the Assyrian Empire once more to its
approximately size of the time of Tiglath-pileser I. But there was one important difference—Assyria was
now ruled with an iron hand, and mercy was unknown wherever Ashurnasirpal held sway. The empire
was divided into provinces ruled by Assyrian governors. The provinces consisted of organized districts
with cities as centers. The populations of these provinces were pressed by the Assyrian tax collectors to
the point that they lived for only one purpose, to pour out tribute to satisfy the insatiable thirst of the
Assyrian monarch.
Shalmaneser III, who came to the throne at an advanced age in 859 B.C., not only knew how to keep his
father’s empire intact but was successful in extending it into new areas. He was the first Assyrian king to
have contact with the little kingdom of Israel. Israel had developed into a respectably large kingdom
during the reign of David and Solomon, when Assyria and Egypt were too weak to interfere. However,
the breakup of the Hebrew kingdom into two states after Solomon’s death (931/30 B.C.) coincided with
the resurrection of Assyrian power when Ashur-dan II came to the throne in 933 B.C., and Assyrian eyes
again turned greedily toward the west. Yet, as long as the battle was waged only against the states in
northern Mesopotamia, Israel had not much to fear from the powerful state on the Tigris; but when the
danger of being overrun came nearer and nearer with every new king and each new expansion of the
Assyrian Empire, the kings of Israel have felt increasing alarm. Finally, they were drawn into this conflict,
as Judah was also eventually.
Whether Ahab, who is mentioned as one of the allies fighting against Shalmaneser HI at Qargar in 853
B.C., took part in the anti-Assyrian alliance of his own volition or whether he was forced to do so by
Damascus (Syria) is uncertain. This will be discussed in the section on the history of the divided kingdom
of Israel and Judah. From now on, royal Assyrian inscriptions mention Israelite kings rather frequently.
During the next 130 years, there were many clashes of interest between the two powers, until the kingdom
of Israel followed the example of other Syrian and Palestinian states in becoming an Assyrian province.
It would lead too far a field to follow Shalmaneser III on his numerous campaigns, of which good records
in word and picture are extant; nevertheless, a short outline of his military accomplishments is necessary
in order to understand the political situation in Western Asia during the time of the prophets Elijah and
129
Elisha. The Assyrian king conquered, first, Til-Barsip, capital of the powerful Aramaean state of Bit-
Adini on the upper Euphrates. The population was deported to Assyria, and Assyrian colonists were
moved into the area. Til-Barsip was rebuilt and called “Shalmaneser’s castle.” Henceforth this city
became the headquarters and point of departure for several campaigns against city states in Cilicia and
Syria, whose conquest opened the silver mines of the Taurus Mts. and the forests of the Amanus Mts. to
the land-hungry Assyrians.
In Syria 12 allied princes, including Ahab of Israel, met Shalmaneser at Qargar in 853 B.C. Adadidri of
Damascus (the second of three Ben-hadads mentioned in the Bible) was the leader. Although
Shalmaneser claimed in high-sounding words to have won a brilliant victory, he could not hide the fact
that his first encounter with the Syrian opponents had ended at best in a draw, perhaps even victory, for
the allies. However, Shalmaneser did not forget his objective, and in 848 made a second attempt against
practically the same coalition. Again, the allies withstood him successfully, and even his third campaign
was not a full success. When Hazael followed Adadidri on the throne of Damascus, the Assyrian king
marched up to Hazael’s capital and destroyed its palm gardens, but was not able to conquer the city. Jehu
of Israel, who had usurped the throne and was not ready for a fight, thought it wise to pay tribute. This
fact is depicted on the famous Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser, which was found in Calah and is now in the
British Museum. The Assyrian king reached the Mediterranean at the Dog River near Beirut, farther south
than any of his predecessors. There he had his picture cut in relief on rock.
Shalmaneser III also gained some territory in the north and reached the sources of the Tigris, where he
offered sacrifices. He did not, however, attack the strong kingdom of Urartu, which, under Sardur I, was
determined to remain independent. Shalmaneser later entered Babylonian politics, upon an occasion when
two brothers contested the throne. He allowed Babylonian politics, upon an occasion when two brothers
contested the throne. He allowed Babylonia to retain its independence, but exhibited Assyrian power to
the people of Lower Mesopotamia by marching down to the Persian Gulf, on the way accepting tribute in
gold, ivory, and elephant hides from the region to the south of Babylonia, including the important
Aramaean state of Bit-Jakin. The fame and awe of Assyria had become so great that all gates were opened
to the king. Very seldom was so great success gained with so little effort.
During the greater part of his reign, which lasted for more than 30 years, Shalmaneser enjoyed the faithful
assistance of his commander in chief (turtan), Daian-ashur. During his last years, however, a serious
revolt of the governors broke out and destroyed his lifework. From now on till his death in 824 B.C. he
was scarcely able to maintain his position at Calah. The reasons for this revolt, led by one of
Shalmaneser’s sons, are not clear, and lay either in the discontent with the old king’s decision concerning
his successor or in his foreign or domestic policy.
Period of Imperial Dissolution (824—746 B.C.) - Although the power of the empire declined during the
last years of Shalmaneser III, there was no complete breakup of authority over the conquered areas. The
next king, Shamshi-Adad V (824-810 B.C.), succeeded, in three campaigns, in restoring Assyrian prestige,
and in this he was supported by the Babylonian king Marduk-zakir-shum.
At this time begins a leaning toward Babylonia and its culture, which the Assyrians always unconsciously
recognized as superior to their own. Shamshi-Adad took a Babylonian princess, Sammu-ramat, as wife
and used the Babylonian language for royal inscriptions. Although he and his son both found it necessary
130
to conquer Babylonia repeatedly to punish acts of enmity, these two Assyrian kings never dared to
incorporate, as a province, that famous land, considered the mother of Assyrian culture.
When Shamshi-Adad V died in 810 B.C., his son Adad-nirari HI (810-782 B.C.) was too young for the
kingship, and therefore his wife, Sammu-ramat, reigned a number of years for her son as regent. Her
superior personality and the fact that she is the only woman ever to rule over Assyria made such a deep
impression on her contemporaries and on later generations that under the name of Semiramis she became
the central figure of numerous legends of antiquity that live on in Iraq to the present day. Several ancient
works, such as aqueducts and monumental buildings, are attributed to her.
A strange religious revolution took place in the time of Adad-nirari II, which can be compared with that
of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ikhnaton. For an unknown reason Nabu (Nebo), the god of Borsippa, seems to
have been proclaimed sole god, or at least the principal god, of the empire. A Nabu temple was erected in
787 B.C. at Calah, and on a Nabu statue one of the governors dedicated to the king appear the significant
words, “Trust in Nabu, do not trust in any other god” The favorite place accorded Nabu in the religious
life of Assyria is revealed by the fact that no other god appears so often in personal names. This
monotheistic revolution had as short a life as the Aton revolution in Egypt. The worshipers of the
Assyrian national deities quickly recovered from their impotence, reoccupied their privileged places, and
suppressed Nabu. This is the reason that so little is known concerning the events during the time of the
monotheistic revolution. Biblical chronology places Jonah’s ministry in the time of Jeroboam II, of Israel,
who reigned from 793 to 753 B.C. Hence, Jonah’s mission to Nineveh may have occurred in the reign of
Adad-nirari II], and may have had something to do with his decision to abandon the old gods and serve
only one deity. This explanation can, however, be given only as a possibility, because source material for
that period is so scanty and fragmentary that a complete reconstruction of the political and religious
history of Assyria during the time under consideration is not yet possible.
Adad-nirari III’s successors conducted several military campaigns westward, but they were not able to
suppress the subject nations permanently, nor to keep back the growing power of Urartu, which took over
more and more areas formerly belonging to the Assyrian Empire. A revolt in Assur in 763 B.C., and the
inactivity of some kings, brought Assyria to the point of collapse. If a strong ruler—Tiglath-pileser I1—
had not come to the throne, Assyria might have vanished from history more than a century earlier than it
did.
The Formation of the New Assyrian Empire by Tiglath-pileser III (745—727 B.C.) - Tiglath-pileser
III came into power as a usurper during a palace revolt at Calah in 746, but he did not actually take the
throne until the second month in 745. That he chose for his ruling name that of a great former empire
builder reveals his ambitions and plans. Like the great Tiglath-pileser I, he systematically and consistently
pursued the plan to re-establish the Assyrian Empire.
The new king found himself face to face with three main problems of foreign policy which had to be
solved in order to re-establish Assyrian power: (1) relations had to be clarified with Babylonia, which had
fallen prey to the southern Aramaeans (Chaldeans); (2) Assyrian dominion over the Syro-Palestinian
areas had to be re-established; (3) the power of Urartu, the great northern rival of Assyria, had to be
curtailed. The way in which he solved these problems gives him the right to be called one of the greatest
of Assyrian rulers.
131
The first task was a solution of the Babylonian question, which Tiglath-pileser carried out in two states. In
the year of his accession, he went to Babylonia, defeated the Aramaean tribes that occupied great parts of
the country, and deported them to other parts of his empire. The weak Babylonian king Nabonassar,
whose power hardly reached beyond his city walls, was, for the time being, left unmolested. Two short-
lived kings were tolerated on Babylon’s throne after Nabonassar’s death in 734 B.C., since Tiglath-pileser
was engaged elsewhere and did not have time for Babylonia. As soon as he had his hands free, however,
he set out to restore order to the chaotic political situation in Babylon, where Aramaean sheiks were the
real rulers. He turned against them, decisively defeated them, and, in an act without precedent for an
Assyrian king, “took the hands” of the god Marduk in token of accepting the kingship of Babylon—under
the ruling name Pulu. Recognizing that Assyria would never be able to rule Babylonia, because of its own
inferiority complex with respect to the superior Babylonian culture, he conceived a novel solution that
consisted of uniting the two states as equals under the rulership of one king—who was thus monarch of
both Assyria and Babylonia.
Tiglath-pileser’s second task, the reconquest of Syria, was accomplished during the process of a number
of military campaigns. He encountered strong opposition, especially at the cities of Arpad (now Tell
Erfad), north of Aleppo, and Samal (now Zenjirli), whose conquest was time consuming and costly. Other
city states surrendered only after bloody defeats. However, after three long campaigns the majority of the
Syrian states once more belonged to the Assyrian Empire. Finally, Damascus and Israel were also
defeated. The state of Damascus (Syria) was made into an Assyrian province, as were the northern and
eastern parts of Israel and the coastal area of Palestine. Samaria, Israel’s capital, was left with the
southern part of the country as a semi-independent vassal state.
Hence, we read in the Bible and in royal Assyrian annals that Menahem, of Israel, paid tribute to Tiglath-
pileser (Pul; 2 Kings 15:19), and of the replacement of Pekah by Hoshea. The king of Judah, who had
sought Tiglath-pileser’s help against Samaria and Damascus, and who went to Damascus to be received
as Assyria’s vassal (2 Kings 16:10), is also mentioned in the Assyrian records. It is therefore not
astonishing that the first Assyrian king mentioned by name in the Bible is Tiglath-pileser. He appears
there under his Assyrian as well as under his Babylonian name, Pul (2 Kings 16:7, 10; 2 Chronicles 28:20;
2 Kings 15:19; and 1 Chronicles 5:26, where the Hebrew text should be translated, “And the God of Israel
stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, even the spirit of Tilgath-pileser king of Assyria”).
Tilgath-pileser’s third task was the subjugation of Urartu, which he began by conquering the states allied
with its king, Sardur I. By overrunning the northern Mesopotamian and Syrian city states, much of
Sardur’s strength was broken. The decisive battle, however, was fought at Kummuh, west of the
Euphrates, where Sardur was badly defeated but was able to escape to his capital Tushpa (now
Toprakkale) at Lake Van. Although Tiglath-pileser’s subsequent siege of Tushpa was unsuccessful,
Urartu’s power was broken, and the Assyrians occupied the greater part of Urartu, making of it the
province Ulluba.
After each conquest, the Assyrian king transplanted the native populations to other parts of the empire.
This policy resulted in a large-scale forced migration of peoples. Tiglath-pileser planned and succeeded in
breaking the nationalistic spirit of the various nations, by tearing them away from their motherland and
the soil they loved. This exchange of nations was intended to create an empire whose people would no
longer consider themselves citizens of Urartu, Israel, Babylonia, or Damascus, but as citizens of Assyria.
132
This singularly successful king thus initiated a policy followed by his Assyrian successors and later by the
Babylonians. This policy came to have a decisive effect on the later history of the Near East.
Shalmaneser V (727—722 B.C.) - Shalmaneser V, son of Tiglath-pileser, followed the policies of his
father as closely as he could. Hence, as soon as he had come to the throne, he had himself crowned also as
king of Babylon, where he bore the name Ululai. Unrest in the west forced him to turn his attention to
Palestine soon after his accession to the throne, in order to keep that region within the empire. Hanno of
Gaza, who had escaped to Egypt in Tiglath-pileser’s time, on hearing of Shalmaneser’s accession to the
throne, returned and formed a coalition with Assyria’s vassal prince, Hoshea of Israel, with a usurper in
Hamath, and with the rulers of the cities of Arpad, Damascus, and Simyra. Trusting in the help of Egypt,
these several princes refused the payment of tribute to Assyria, and Shalmaneser was obliged to restore
his authority in the usual Assyrian way. Part of this campaign was directed against the semi-independent
but politically unreliable state of Israel, which the king planned to annihilate. He besieged Samaria for
three years inclusive, and probably took the city near the end of his reign.
Although Sargon II, the following king, claimed to have conquered Samaria, there is evidence that his
claim is unjustified and that he attributed to himself what Shalmaneser V had accomplished near the close
of his reign. As Shalmaneser’s army commander, Sargon may, however, have played an important role in
the conquest of Samaria. As had by now become a custom, he deported the remnant of the kingdom of
Israel to northern Mesopotamia (Habor and Gozan), to the motherland of Assyria (Halah), and to Median
cities in the north eastern provinces (2 Kings 18:11). On the other hand, Babylonians from Babylon and
Cuthah, and Syrians from Hamath and Sepharvaim were transplanted to repopulate the land of Israel (2
Kings 17:24).
Sargon II (722-705 B.C.) - The new king was a usurper, and probably the murderer of his predecessor.
Whatever the differences between Sargon and Shalmaneser may have been in domestic matters, in the
field of external policies no change was contemplated or carried out, and Sargon closely followed the
pattern set by Tiglath-pileser. His problems were similar to those of Tiglath-pileser’s reign, with the
difference that the former king had come to the throne at a time of national weakness and had built up an
empire from practically nothing, while Sargon had only to hold what he inherited. Sargon did have one
additional problem, however, that of meeting a threat of invasion from Indo-European tribes pushing
southward through the Caucasus and eastward from Anatolia. King Mita of the Mushki, the Phrygian
Midas of Greek writers, was his chief opponent. By inducing Carchemish to revolt, Mita forced a
showdown with Sargon. This obliged the latter to take that famous city on the Euphrates (717 B.C.) and
deport its population, which had until now kept Hittite culture alive and had made use of Hittite
hieroglyphs in writing.
The Urartaean kingdom under Rusa I was sorely pressed by the Cimmerians and the Medes, a welcome
situation to Sargon in that it made that much easier the conquest of this traditional enemy country to the
north. Sargon’s Urartaean campaign, carried out in his eighth year, is described in such detail on a famous
tablet now in the Louvre in Paris that we are able to follow the royal army almost daily on its march and
during its battles. While the conquest of Urartu and its subsequent weakness seemed to have advantages
for the time being, the elimination of a strong northern buffer state had also undeniable disadvantages. It
brought Assyria face to face with new barbaric tribes that a hundred years later were primarily responsible
for the death of Assyria.
133
About that time Babylonia received an extremely able ruler in the person of Marduk-apal-iddina, the
Merodach-baladan of the Bible (Isaiah 39:1). He was an Aramaean of Bit-Jakin, against whom Sargon
was powerless as the result of a grievous defeat at the hands of the Elamites, who supported Marduk-
apaliddina. For 12 years Sargon was compelled to campaign in the west and north before he felt strong
enough to turn once more against Babylonia. In 709 B.C., however, he succeeded in driving Marduk-apal-
iddina out of Babylonia and making himself its king, as his two predecessors on the throne of Assyria had
done. One year later he destroyed Dur-Jakin near the Persian Gulf, seat of the Chaldean state of Bit-Jakin,
and made Marduk-apal-iddina’s home country an Assyrian province.
Sargon had little trouble in Palestine, which, with the exception of Ashdod, a coastal city of Philistia,
remained quiet. In the hope of receiving Egyptian, Edomite, and Judean assistance, its ruler tried to shake
off the Assyrian yoke. As Isaiah predicted, the revolt was unsuccessful and the city was taken by Sargon’s
turtan, “commander in chief” (“Tartan” in Isaiah 20:1). It may be mentioned in passing that Sargon’s
name was completely unknown from secular sources prior to the deciphering of cuneiform inscriptions,
and that his very existence, and thus the accuracy of Isaiah, had been doubted by higher critics. However,
Sargon’s name was one of the first discovered in Assyrian records. This was the earliest discoveries
concerning Assyria were made in Sargon’s own capital Dur Sharrukin, now Khorsabad, where immense
quantities of sculptures and inscribed royal records were brought to light.
Sargon’s last years are wrapped in mystery. But on one of his eastern campaigns his army suffered a
serious defeat, and he seems to have lost his life on that occasion.
Sennacherib (705—681 B.C.) - When Sennacherib came to the throne he was already trained in the art
of ruling people, having been governor of the northern province of Amid during his father’s reign. His
character differed from that of Sargon II. He took a keen interest in the technical improvement of war
equipment and in new building methods that made Nineveh the most glorious capital of the Assyrian
period. In politics, he showed a severity that knew no compromise, a weakness that made it difficult to
rule successfully over a great empire and to keep together what he had inherited. The two outstanding
events of his life to impress the memory of later generations—his senseless destruction of Babylon and
his unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem—are, in the light of history, both considered political failures.
When Sennacherib came to the throne, a revolt broke out among Syrian and Palestinian princes, who
trusted in the help of Egypt. Sennacherib therefore marched to the west (701 B.C.) and was able to restore
the former status in most places to which he came. When, after a long campaign, he finally camped at
Lachish to make preparations for the siege of Jerusalem, he received tribute from Hezekiah of Judah, who
in this way tried to appease the heartless king of Assyria. But Sennacherib would be satisfied with
nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem. The demand, however, was rejected by
Hezekiah, and Sennacherib, whose presence was apparently required elsewhere, seems to have broken off
the campaign. At least, he claims no more in his victory inscriptions than having shut Hezekiah in
Jerusalem like a bird in a cage. He did not claim to have taken the city or its king. Judah was saved for the
time being, and not threatened again until toward the end of Hezekiah’s reign.
Hezekiah, encouraged by Sennacherib’s failure to take Jerusalem in 701 B.C., continued to participate in
anti-Assyrian coalitions, which eventually brought the Assyrian armies back to Judea. For this second
campaign of Sennacherib, made after Taharka’s accession to the throne of Egypt (690 B.C.), no
cuneiform sources are available. A new demand for surrender made by the Assyrian king to Hezekiah was
134
rejected, with the encouragement and support of the prophet Isaiah. Although Isaiah had advised
Hezekiah against participation in the coalition against Assyria, he was now, once the mistake had been
made, on the side of the king and assured him that Sennacherib would “not come into this city, nor shoot
an arrow there, nor come before it with shields, nor cast a bank against it” (Isaiah 37:33). It was not an
Egyptian army that saved Jerusalem upon this occasion, but a miracle. “Then the angel of the Lord went
forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they
arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses” (verse 36).
Even more troublesome than the west was Babylonia. Immediately after Sennacherib’s accession to the
throne Marduk-apal-iddina returned from Elam, and with the help of the Elamite king Shutrup-nachunde
occupied the throne of Babylon for almost a year. However, Sennacherib marched against Babylonia in
703 B.C., defeated Marduk-apal-iddina, and installed as ruler Bel-ibni, a native Babylonian who had been
educated in Assyria.
Shortly after Sennacherib’s disastrous campaign in the west, Babylonia revolted again. Thereupon
Sennacherib conducted another expedition against the Babylonians, in which great parts of the country
were devastated. Taking Bel-ibni prisoner, Sennacherib made his own son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, king of
Babylon. However, the Elamites took Babylon in 694 B.C. and put Nergal-ushezib on the throne, but this
king was captured a year later by Sennacherib. After further upheavals, the Chaldean Mushezib-Marduk
ascended the throne in 692 B.C., and, according to the Babylonian Chronicle, defeated the Assyrian army
sent against him. However, Sennacherib now became so impatient at the continual state of unrest in
Babylonia that he determined to eliminate it as a trouble spot from his empire. Hence, when he captured
the city in 689 B.C., he did what none of his predecessors had dared to do—he destroyed the Babylonian
metropolis thoroughly and systematically, throwing the debris of temples and palaces into the river, so
forcing it to change its course. Minor gods were smashed and the major ones taken to Assyria. This deed
the Babylonian neither forgave nor forgot, and for it they took a terrible revenge about 77 years later,
when they destroyed Nineveh.
Sennacherib’s life was taken by his own sons, according to the Bible, the Babylonian Chronicle, and an
inscription of Esarhaddon. Each of these records adds something to our fragmentary information on this
heinous murder.
Esarhaddon (681—669 B.C.) - Esarhaddon, whose mother was an Aramaean, reversed his father’s anti-
Babylonian policies upon coming to the throne. Apparently belonging to a party that favored Babylon, he
started out to rebuild the ruined city, although the Marduk statue was not returned until Ashurbanipal’s
reign. Once more, the power of Marduk over Assur was demonstrated to an astonished world.
With the conquest of Egypt of Esarhaddon the outward might of the Assyrian Empire reached its greatest
height and remained so until its final decline began during the reign of Ashurbanipal. Esarhaddon’s first
attempt to take Egypt in 673 B.C. was unsuccessful, and ended indefeat. But Taharka, an Ethiopian king
of Egypt, surrendered two years later, and when Memphis fell almost without a battle the whole country
lay open before the Assyrians, and the wealth of the Nile country streamed into Assyria. Esarhaddon
installed 22 local princes as rulers over the country, and gave them Assyrian governors as supervisors.
Returning from Egypt, the king had a relief of himself cut in the rocks at the Dog River near Beirut,
where he found one left by his great predecessor, Shalmaneser III, and also had victory steles set up in
several Syrian cities. One of these was found at Zenjirli, in which the king is shown leading the kings of
135
Tyre and Egypt by a cord as if they were wild animals. Heretofore no human being had ever possessed as
great power as Esarhaddon. Neither Sargon of Agade (Akkad) nor Hammurabi had ruled over so many
countries or peoples; but the signs of impending danger, already visible, troubled Esarhaddon. Barbaric
nations such as the Scythians in the north west, the Cimmerians in eastern Asia Minor and Armenia, and
the Medes in the east continued to gain strength. Anticipating trouble, Esarhaddon asked the sun-god
whether these people would be successful or whether they could be kept back. Trying to remove one evil
through another, he concluded a treaty with the Scythians against the Cimmerians and Medes and gave
his daughter to the Scythian chieftain Bartatua, whom Herodotus calls Protothyas.
In 672 B.C., Ashurbanipal was proclaimed crown prince of Assyria, and became virtually coregent with
his father. Two years later, Shamash-shum-ukin, the older son of Esarhaddon, received the same dignity
with respect to Babylon.
Esarhaddon’s reign ended under a cloud. Egypt revolted, when Taharka of Ethiopia once more appeared
on the scene, making it necessary for Esarhaddon to set out for the Nile to punish the rebels and restore
order. He died in 669 B.C. on his way to Egypt.
Ashurbanipal (669—627? B.C.) - Led now by Esarhaddon’s turtan, Sha-Nabu-shu, the Egyptian
campaign was brought to a successful end. Necho, one of the rebellious princes who was brought to
Nineveh as captive to receive punishment won the king’s favor and was sent back to Egypt as an Assyrian
vassal. His son Psamtik took the Assyrian name Nabu-shezibanni. Another attempt was made to liberate
Egypt from the Assyrian yoke, by Taharka’s successor Tanutamon, but it was likewise unsuccessful.
Ashurbanipal took Thebes and thoroughly destroyed that beautiful city. A few years later Psamtik was
able to shake off the Assyrian yoke and to restore Egypt’s independence. To hold Egypt in subjection
proved to be so costly for Assyria at a time when it needed all its reserves to meet dangers from the west,
north, and east that the Nile country had to be given up.
Ashurbanipal also had trouble in Babylon, where his own brother Shamash-shum-ukin revolted. The
revolt failed, however, Babylon was taken, and Shamash-shum-ukin died in the flames of his palace.
Ashurbanipal then crowned himself king of Babylon. He also waged several successful wars against Elam,
which had supported Shamash-shum-ukin, and against Arabia, Syria, and Palestine. He was thus able to
keep his shaky empire together. He even had the rare satisfaction of seeing most of his enemies perish
before he left the scene of action. Gyges of Lydia, who had supported Psamtik in his revolt, lost throne
and life in his war with the Cimmerians. Another rebel, the Chaldean prince Nabu-bel-shumati,
committed suicide in order not to fall into Ashurbanipal’s hands, and in Elam, a number of minor kings
lost their lives in the several wars with Assyria that finally crushed the proud kingdom of Elam and
leveled its capital city, Susa.
The passing glory of Assyria and the wealth that poured into the royal coffers could not hide the fact that
the days of that proud empire were numbered. So long as a strong man held the reins of government in his
hands the coming catastrophe was postponed, but a careful observer could already see that a different
situation would arise whenever a weak ruler should come to the throne.
Ashurbanipal is especially well known as the collector of many books and the founder of the great library
of Nineveh, which was discovered in the ruins of Nineveh in the middle of the 19th century. From this
library, now in the British Museum, was derived much of our early information concerning Assyrian and
136
Babylonian history and religion. Later other great cuneiform collections found in the ruined sites of
Mesopotamia have provided additional valuable information. As a prince, originally destined to become a
priest, he received a careful scholarly and priestly training, and for this reason took an interest in
collecting the literary wealth of his time. He preserved for later ages copies of many valuable texts, the
originals of which have long since disappeared.
The circumstances and date of his death are unknown. The year 626 B.C. was formerly given as the year
of his death, and some thought that it was 631. Others say probably about 627. But since no Eponym
Canon for his last years is known, the chronology of this period is somewhat uncertain.
The End of the Assyrian Empire - Ashur-etil-ilani, a younger son of Ashurbanipal who owed his throne
to Sin-shum-lishir, one of his father’s generals, ruled for the next five years or so. The new king held
southern Babylonia, but could not prevent Nabopolassar, a Chaldean army commander, from taking
Babylon and making himself king. Although he thus lost Babylon permanently, Ashur-etil-ilani had a
happier experience in his fight against the Medes, whose king, Phraortes, fell in battle. It is uncertain how
and in what year Ashur-etil-ilani was succeeded by Sin-shar-ishkun, generally held to be his brother.
(Some scholars even consider the two names as belonging to one king.)
Sin-shar-ishkun seems to have enjoyed a measure of success for a time. He campaigned against Babylonia,
and even conquered Sippar. Also, the Medes under Phraortes’ son Cyaxares were beaten. It is a curious
fact that now, having lost its former strength, Assyria received help from former enemies such as the
Scythians and Egyptians, who feared that its fall might give birth to other powers even more dangerous
than Assyria had been.
Realizing Assyria’s weakness, and following the principle that attack is the best defense, Nabopolassar of
Babylon went on the offensive soon after he had become an independent king. He had some military
successes, but also several setbacks, as revealed in the Babylonian Chronicle that covers his first three
regnal years. Lack of extant records leaves us in the dark about his successes and defeats during the next
seven years. In 616 B.C., the year for which chronicles are again available, Nabopolassar was on the
offensive and conquered Assyrian and Aramaean towns on the middle Euphrates, but proved unable to
withstand an Assyro-Egyptian army, which drove him back to Babylon. The following year Nabopolassar
made an unsuccessful attempt to take the old city of Assur. This campaign also failed. He was not yet
strong enough to defeat Assyria single handed. However, the Medes captured Tarbisu and Assur in 614
B.C. and the Median king Cyaxares concluded an alliance with Nabopolassar that was sealed by the
marriage of the Babylonian crown prince Nebuchadnezzar to a Median princess. This political alliance
decided the fate of Assyria, and after a siege of three months Nineveh fell to the united Medes and
Babylonians, in 612 B.C. Sin-shar-ishkun died with his family in the flames of his palace. Like Calah,
Nineveh was destroyed so thoroughly that later generations did not even know of its location. The empire
of Assyria was divided between Cyaxares and Nabopolassar, the former taking all the northern provinces,
along with Assyria’s claims to Asia Minor, and the latter receiving nominal control of Mesopotamia,
Syria, and Palestine. Actual control, however, could be won only through a show of power, and not
simply by an understanding between the two victors.
With Egyptian help, an Assyrian prince by the name of Ashur-uballit essayed to re-establish the Assyrian
state, with Haran as its capital, but was soon evicted by the Medes and Chaldeans. Assyria, the scourge of
the nations for many centuries, ceased to exist, and its citizens experienced the same cruel treatment their
137
rulers had meted out to many other peoples in the past. The words of Nahum, like those of other Hebrew
prophets who had predicted the fall of the Assyrian Empire, were literally fulfilled:
“O king of Assyria:
thy nobles shall dwell in the dust:
thy people is scattered upon the mountains,
and no man gathereth them.
There is no healing of thy bruise;
thy wound is grievous” (Nahum 3:18, 19).
Phoenicia From the Earliest Times to Nebuchadnezzar II
Phoenicia, though not mentioned under this name in the Old Testament, had many contacts with the
Hebrews, and the history of this country is of some importance to the student of the Bible, who finds
frequent mention of Phoenician cities such as Tyre, Sidon, Zarephath (Sarepta), Gebal (Byblos), and
Arvad (Aradus).
The land of Phoenicia covered the narrow coastal strip of Syria north of the Bay of Acre and between the
Lebanon mountain range and the Mediterranean, which consists of a number of small plains where the
mountains recede from the sea, each of which was dominated by a maritime city. The coastal plain varies
in width from 1/2 mile to 3 miles (.8 to 4.8 km.). In some places, as at the Nahr el—Kelb, the Dog river
north of Beirut, the mountains drop precipitously to the sea, so that the road must be blasted out of the
rocks. Anciently, the cities were built either on rocky islands off the coast—like Tyre and Arvad—or on
the shore where land jutting out into the sea forms small bays in what is, for the most part, a straight coast
line—as with Tripoli and Byblos. The country was well watered by a number of rivers from the Lebanon
Mts., which in ancient times were heavily forested with cedars and other coniferous trees. Phoenicia was
rich in grain, fruit, and wine, and as the principal exporter of cedarwood from the mountains and the
products of the Syrian hinterland, it became the commercial clearing house of the ancient world.
The Greek name for the land, Phoenicia, is related to one of its principal exports, a purple-colored dye
material called phoinix, “purple,” or “crimson.” However, they called themselves Kena‘ani, that is,
Canaanites, and their country Canaan, which agrees with Genesis 10:15-19, where the inhabitants of
several Phoenician cities are listed as descendants of Canaan.
There is not sufficient source material available for a complete history of Phoenicia, and its earliest
history is completely shrouded in obscurity. One of the Phoenician cities, however—Byblos—appears in
Egyptian records of the third millennium as an important city for the export of cedarwood. Excavations
carried out in Byblos have shown strong Egyptian influence during the time of the Old (Egyptian)
Kingdom. The later Tyrians claimed a tradition that their city had been founded about 2750 B.C., and the
Sidonians claimed an even greater age for their city. The earliest mention of these important port cities of
southern Phoenicia is found in the records of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt, when all of Phoenicia was
dominated by the rulers of the Nile valley. However, the fact that the Phoenicians had to pay tribute to
Egypt and tolerate Egyptian garrisons in their cities did not materially affect their economic strength.
Their foreign trade seems to have flourished, and their agents were found in Cyprus, on the coasts of Asia
Minor, and in the Aegean Sea. Toward the end of the second millennium, they extended their economic
138
sphere of influence and sent ships to Sicily, Sardinia, North Africa, and Spain. Later, permanent colonies
were founded in distant lands. Of these colonies, Carthage became the most famous. It grew so strong, in
fact, that in course of time it dared to challenge the expansionism of Rome. Tartessus, in Spain, the
westernmost point of Phoenician influence, was one of several places named “Tarshish,” or “smeltery,” to
which sailed “ships of Tarshish” (Psalms 48:7; see on 1 Kings 10:22).
Until the close of the second millennium B.C., Sidon had held the most important place among the
Phoenician port cities, but during the first millennium Tyre took the lead and kept it for many centuries. It
seems that Phoenicia never developed a unified government controlling the whole country, but that each
large city had its own ruler and that its control extended to smaller communities adjacent to it.
A number of rulers of Byblos are known from inscriptions found during the excavations of that city, but
after the middle of the second millennium B.C., the political role of Byblos seems to have been at most a
minor one. Hiram was the first ruler of Tyre whose name is known. He was contemporary with David and
Solomon and assisted in the building of the Temple at Jerusalem. Also, his sailors participated with those
of Solomon in expeditions to Ophir.
One of Hiram’s later successors was Ethbaal, father of Ahab’s infamous wife, Jezebel. He had been a
priest of Astarte before becoming king of Tyre, which may explain his daughter’s zeal for the religion of
her native land, even when she became queen of Israel. During Ethbaal’s reign the struggle with Assyria
began in earnest, that country which from the 9th century B.C. onward sought to subjugate piecemeal all
lands to the west. Hence, at the battle of Qarqar in 853, we find the king of the Phoenician city of Arvad,
with 200 soldiers, in the coalition against Shalmaneser III. However, most of the other Phoenician cities
agreed to pay tribute. Thus for a time they maintained comparative independence and continued their
lucrative overseas trade unmolested.
An important episode in Phoenician history was the fight of Tyre against Shalmaneser V and Sargon II in
the time of king Hezekiah of Judah. Tyre was besieged for five years and sorely hurt. It seems that the
city was finally forced to surrender and once more made tributary. But Tyre rebelled again in
Sennacherib’s time, and was unsuccessfully besieged. Yet, when Sidon followed Tyre’s example and
rebelled against Esarhaddon, it was taken and destroyed (678 B.C.). Tyre remained independent a few
years longer, but was finally forced back into the Assyrian fold by Ashurbanipal.
When the tottering Assyrian Empire was replaced by the Neo-Babylonian, Tyre took advantage of the
political difficulties of the transitional period, declared itself independent, and refused to send tribute to
Babylonia. As a result, Nebuchadnezzar moved against the city. He took mainland Tyre but besieged the
island city for 13 years without success. He allowed the king to remain on the throne, but appointed a
Babylonian high commissioner to safeguard Babylonian interests.
The Syrian States
The name Syria is a geographical term designating an area that has varied in size from time to time.
Present-day Syria does not include everything known as Syria in ancient times, and extends to areas that
had never before been considered a part of it. In Roman times all the land from the Euphrates in the north
to the Red Sea in the south was designated as Syria. At other times Palestine was thought of separately,
139
and parts of northern and central Mesopotamia were included. Generally speaking, however, the
geographical term Syria designates an area bordered on the east by the great Syrian Desert, in the west by
the Mediterranean, in the north by the Taurus Mts., and in the south by Palestine, with the line between
Syria and Palestine running approximately straight from the sea north of Acre to the Jordan north of the
now-drained Lake Huleh.
The region thus marked out is intersected by two north-south mountain ranges. The western range is
marked in the north by the Jebel Akra (5,241 ft.; 1,597 m.) and in the south by the Lebanon, which rises
to more than 10,000 ft. (3,048 metres). The eastern range of mountains, called the Anti-Lebanon, ends in
the south with Mt. Hermon (9,232 ft., or 2,814 metres). Between the two ranges lies a 12-mi.-wide (19.3
km.) highland valley, now called Beqa‘, “the split,” with its two rivers, the Litani, flowing south, and the
Orontes, north. Both rivers eventually turn west and empty their waters into the Mediterranean. Several
streams flow eastward from the Anti-Lebanon range and irrigate various oases of the Syrian Desert, of
which Damascus, with its surrounding garden area, is the richest and largest.
Since the coastal region of Phoenicia was isolated by mountains from the rest of Syria, it experienced a
history somewhat different from that of the hinterland, and has been treated separately in the preceding
section. Thus, politically, Syria consisted essentially of city states that flourished around oases such as
those of Damascus and Aleppo and others such as Kadesh, Qatna, Hamath, or Alalakh (Tell ‘Atshanah)
on the banks of inland rivers. The latter all lay in close proximity along the Orontes. The typical Syrian
culture of later times is also found in Upper Mesopotamia, in the area which in the second millennium
was known as the kingdom of Mitanni.
As in the case of Phoenicia, little is known of the history of this area prior to the middle of the second
millennium. Egyptian and Babylonian texts of the first half of that millennium B.C., however,
occasionally mention the rulers of the cities of Syria, and from their names, we learn that they were
Amorites, as were most of the rulers of Western Asia from 2200-1500 B.C. The Hyksos, who swept down
to Egypt in the 18th century, passed through Syria on their way to the Nile valley and took possession of
certain important cities, for instance Qatna, fortifying them in typical Hyksos manner with massive earth
ramparts.
In the 16th century all Syria was conquered by Thutmose III and remained under Egyptian control for
almost a century. However, during the reign of Amenhotep III and Ikhnaton, some of the subject native
tulers took advantage of Egypt’s weakness and made themselves independent. The strongest of these
rebellious states was Amurru, of which we learn much from the Amarna Letters and the Hittite records of
the period. During the time of the Nineteenth Dynasty a new rival for the possession of Syria arose, the
Hittites, with the result that Syria frequently became a battlefield where the two opposing powers met.
With the appearance of the Peoples of the Sea toward the end of the 13th century B.C., the Hittites
vanished from history as a nation, but their remnants retained possession of some Syrian cities such as
Hamath and Carchemish, and preserved Hittite culture for several centuries more.
At that time the Aramaeans, who had lived in the plains of northern Mesopotamia for many centuries,
moved south and either founded or took over a number of strong city states, of which Damascus and
Zobah (north of Damascus) became the most powerful. It is for this reason that, from the time of David,
these two states are frequently mentioned in contemporary Biblical records. David was able to hold them
in subjection, but they regained their independence either during the reign of Solomon or immediately
140
after his death. From that time on the Syrian states were enemies of the kingdom of Israel, with the result
that Israel fought numerous wars against the Syrians, especially against Damascus.
From the 9th century onward, the Syrian states shared the fate of other nations of Western Asia, upon
whom the kings of Assyria cast greedy eyes. For two centuries one Assyrian campaign after another was
directed against one or more of these Aramaean states of Syria, to ensure a constant flow of tribute, until
Tiglath-pileser HII inaugurated the policy of transplanting conquered nations to remote districts of the
empire in the effort to replace national consciousness with loyalty to the Assyrian Empire. Hence, one
Syrian city state after another vanished under the relentless onslaught of the Assyrian war machine.
Finally, in 732 B.C. as one of the last, Damascus fell and became a province of Assyria.
The fall of Damascus marked the disappearance of the characteristics Syrian culture from that area, which,
in a somewhat changed form, was perpetuated for a time as a world culture. The Aramaic language spread
with the dispersion of Syria’s population, and within two centuries after the fall of Damascus became a
medium of communication, spoken or at least understood, from the southern border of Egypt throughout
the lands of the Fertile Crescent and Persia, and even as far as the western border of India. Although the
Syrians had never constituted a political unit, and had never been able to extend their control over
extensive parts of the world, their language conquered the world in somewhat the same way as Greek did
some centuries later.
The United Kingdom of Israel (1050-931 B.C.)
Previous sections of this chapter have covered the history of Egypt and Mesopotamia to the 7th century
B.C. This section deals with the 120 years of Israel’s history under its first three kings, each of whom
ruled approximately 40 years (2 Samuel 5:4; 1 Kings 11:42; Acts 13:21).
Since their invasion of Canaan, the Hebrews had slowly grown in strength and taken root through
continual struggle with the nations living in and around Palestine. They had lived in the land for about
three and a half centuries when they felt the need of a unified government. Hitherto they had been guided
by Spirit-led men called judges, without assurance that competent leadership would continue after the
death of each judge. From a strictly human, political point of view, the popular desire for a hereditary
kingship expressed in the time of Samuel (1 Samuel 8:5) was only natural. If Israel was to achieve its aim,
it must remain in permanent possession of the country; and in order to do so it needed unity, continuity of
leadership, and stable government. This eventuality had been foreseen by Moses, who laid down the
principles according to which kings should rule (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).
While under Saul the kingdom remained weak, owing to the young king’s inexperience and immaturity of
character, under David, an indefatigable warrior and an able politician, it was built up into a formidable
empire. It was not comparable with the empires on the Nile and the Euphrates, but was nevertheless
impressive, controlling as it did most of the nations of Palestine and Syria. Built by David’s genius under
the blessing of God, assisted by the weakness of the other great nations of his time, the empire of Israel
remained intact for about half a century. Weaknesses became apparent even under Solomon’s generally
peaceful rule, and his kingdom broke to pieces when death removed his strong hand.
141
Of permanent value, however, aside from the memory of a glorious past under two great kings, was the
establishment of Jerusalem as a religious and political center for the nation. Its very name, “city of peace,”
has exerted a magic influence on the minds of Hebrew people of all generations. Inasmuch as promises of
the coming of Messiah were connected by Inspiration with the royal house of David, the idea of a God-
appointed and God-guided kingship was never lost sight of.
Saul (1050-1011 B.C.) - Saul, the son of the Benjamite, Kish, a man chosen by God for his deeply
religious nature 1 Samuel 10:7, 10, 11; 14:37), his humility (1 Samuel 10:22), and a tendency to be
generous 1 Samuel 11:13), was first secretly anointed by Samuel (1 Samuel 10:1), proclaimed king at
Mizpeh (1 Samuel 10:17-24), and confirmed in office at Gilgal after his successful rescue of Jabesh-
gilead from the Ammonites 1 Samuel 11). His kingdom consisted of a rather loose union of tribes, who
followed him as king in times of emergency, but who otherwise decided their own affairs without
interference from a central government. Early in his reign, his office differed little from that of a judge.
Among other things, he still took care of his own cattle, even after he had been proclaimed king.
Nevertheless, the idea of a real kingship was gradually developing. Saul planned that his kingship should
be hereditary. He erected a castle on the site of his capital, “Gibeah of Saul,” now Tell el—Fal, 4 miles
(6.4 km.) north of Jerusalem. His two-story citadel, measuring 170 by 114 ft. (51.8 by 34.7 metres), with
outer walls 6 to 7 ft. (1.8 to 2.1 metres) thick, has been excavated by W. F. Albright. With its fortified
walls and corner towers, it represents typical Hebrew construction of the time. The largest hall, probably
the audience chamber where David played his lyre before the king, was 7 by 25 ft. (2.1 by 7.6 metres)
Furthermore, Saul created the first, though small, standing army maintained by Israel. It consisted of
3,000 men, situated in 3 garrison cities (1 Samuel 13:2), with his uncle, or perhaps cousin, Abner, as
commander in chief (1 Samuel 14:50).
On the throne during the difficult period when the Philistines, by virtue of their superior weapons and
military experience, tried to subjugate the Hebrews, the new king often found himself fighting against
them, as well as against other nations. The first proof of his generalship was given in his rescue of the
Transjordan city of Jabesh-gilead from the Ammonites (1 Samuel 11:1-11). Successful wars were also
fought against the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:4-8) and the Edomites in the south, the Moabites in the east,
and the Aramaeans of the Syrian state of Zobah (1 Samuel 14:47).
The lifelong threat to Israel’s existence, however, came from Philistia (1 Samuel 14:52), which
maintained garrisons in various Hebrew cities, even in some close to Saul’s capital. The Philistines had a
monopoly on the manufacture and sharpening of weapons and tools, so that at one time in all Israel only
Saul and Jonathan possessed iron weapons (1 Samuel 13:19-22). They terrorized the Hebrews so much
that the latter were habitually forced to seek refuge in caves and inaccessible mountain retreats (verse 6).
The first great Israelite victory over the Philistines, one that resulted in their expulsion from the eastern
hill country, was more a military episode than a real battle. When the Philistines had occupied the hills of
Benjamin and taken Michmash, the Israelites retreated in disorder (verses 5-11). Michmash lies 7 miles
(11.5 km.) north of Jerusalem at an altitude of about 2,000 ft. (610 metres), overlooking the deep gorge of
the Wadi es—Suwenit to the south, which formed the pass of Michmash. While Saul was camped with 600
men at Geba, separated from the Philistines by the Wadi es—Suwenit, Jonathan and his armor-bearer
climbed down the Rock Seneh on which Geba was built, crossed the wadi, and then climbed the steep
142
Rock Bozez, on which the Philistines were encamped at Michmash (1 Samuel 13:15, 23; 14:4, 5). In the
Philistine camp Jonathan’s surprise attack created confusion which was increased by the Hebrews who
came to Jonathan’s aid, with the result that the Philistines fled in panic (1 Samuel 14:11-23).
The first major encounter between the Hebrews and the Philistines during Saul’s reign took place in the
western hill country between Shochoh and Azekah, about halfway between Jerusalem and Ashkelon.
David’s victory over Goliath on this occasion marked the beginning of a great series of victories over the
hated Philistines. The chief results were increased liberty for the Hebrews and considerable wealth
realized from the loot of the Philistines (1 Samuel 17).
Unfortunately, for the nation and the royal house, Saul possessed an undisciplined character that became
overbearing as a result of his successes. Because of his violation of the Levitical law and of divine orders
he lost both the kingship and his own sanity. His last years—we know not how many—were spent under
the shadow of insanity, which in turn led to the persistent attempt to kill David, who he knew was
destined to be his successor. Having lost the friendship and guiding hand of his old counselor Samuel (1
Samuel 15:17-23, 35, he committed some of the most foolish and atrocious crimes, such as slaughtering
the innocent priests of Nob (1 Samuel 22:11-21) and attempting to kill his own son Jonathan (1 Samuel
20:30-33). Known for his zeal in uprooting spiritism, he finally appealed to a witch for counsel the day
before his death (1 Samuel 28:3-25).
At a battle fought in the mountains of Gilboa, at the eastern end of the plain of Esdraelon, Saul and his
sons lost their lives fighting against the Philistines (1 Samuel 31:1-6. This battle was so disastrous that all
the gains of Saul’s long reign were lost to the Philistines, who once more occupied the cities of Israel and
drove the panic-stricken inhabitants to their former mountain retreats (verse 7).
David (1011-971 B.C.) - After Saul’s death, David was crowned king over Judah at Hebron (2 Samuel
2:3, 4). He had in times past been a captain in Saul’s army, and was at one time Saul’s son-in-law (1
Samuel 18:27), but had lived as an outcast in the forests and mountain caves of southern Judah, and in a
Philistine city during the last years of Saul’s reign (1 Samuel 19 to 29). David, who had been anointed
secretly by the prophet Samuel soon after Saul’s rejection as king, was exceptionally gifted as a warrior,
poet, and musician (1 Samuel 17; 2 Samuel 1:17-27; 1 Samuel 16:14-23). He was also deeply religious,
and although he fell into gross sin, he knew how to repent and regain divine favor (see Psalms 51). Hence,
kingship was confirmed in perpetuity to him and his posterity, to culminate in the eternal kingship of the
Messiah, who was a descendant of David after the flesh (Romans 1:3).
The first seven years of David’s reign were confined to Judah, while Ish-bosheth, Saul’s fourth son, ruled
over the remainder of the tribes from his capital, Mahanaim, in Transjordan. Relations between the two
rival kings were bitter, and exploded in strife and bloodshed (2 Samuel 2:12-32). Saul’s army commander,
Abner, was the real power behind the throne of Ish-bosheth, a weakling who fell victim to assassins
immediately after the withdrawal of Abner’s support (2 Samuel 3 and 4). His real name seems to have
been Esh-baal, “man of Baal” (1 Chronicles 8:33; 9:39), which suggests that when he was born Saul had
departed so far from God that he worshiped Baal. For the inspired writer of 2 Samuel this name was so
shameful that he never used it, consistently choosing, rather, to call Esh-baal, “man of Baal,” Ish-bosheth,
“man of shame.”
143
David had made Hebron his capital and was there crowned king over all Israel after Ish-bosheth’s death,
which marked the end of Saul’s brief dynasty. After David had reigned for seven and a half years, he set
out to establish a new capital. He demonstrated remarkable political wisdom by selecting as a capital a
city that had thus far belonged to no tribe, and hence would be acceptable to all. By conquering the
Jebusite fortress of Jerusalem, on the border between Judah and Benjamin, and by establishing the
political and religious center of the kingdom in a central location, yet off the main international highways
running through the country, David showed commendable political foresight. Ever since that time,
Jerusalem has been an important city, and has played a distinctive role in the history of the world.
David’s reign is distinguished by an unbroken chain of military victories. He defeated the Philistines
repeatedly (2 Samuel 5:17-25; 21:15-22; 23:13-17) and was able to free Israel completely from their
influence. He limited them to the coastal area surrounding the cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath,
and Ekron. He also subjugated the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites (2 Samuel 8:2, 14; 10:6 to 11:1;
12:26-31; 1 Chronicles 18:2, 11-13; 19:1 to 20:3), and made the Aramaeans of Damascus and Zobah
tributary (2 Samuel 8:3-13; 1 Chronicles 18:5-10). Other nations sought his friendship by sending gifts—
such as the king of Hamath(2 Samuel 8:9, 10)—or by signing treaties—such as the Phoenician king of
Tyre (2 Samuel 5:11). In this way, David was able to rule over all western and eastern Palestine, with the
exception of the coastal region, and indirectly over great parts of Syria as well. Practically all the territory
between the Euphrates and Egypt either was administered by David’s governors or was friendly or
tributary to him.
David’s domestic policies were not always so successful as his foreign policies. For tax purposes or for an
assessment of the potential man power of his kingdom, he had a census taken that Joab, his general—as
well as God—tesented (2 Samuel 24; 1 Chronicles 21 and 22 David, as some other strong political rulers
before and after him, also occasionally fell victim to his lusts—see for example the Bathsheba episode (2
Samuel 11:2 to 12:25)—and as a polygamist shared the unfortunate results of this custom. One of his sons
committed incest (2 Samuel 13), another, Absalom, became a fratricide and later revolted against his own
father but died in the ensuing battle (2 Samuel 13 to 19). The rebellion of the Benjamite Sheba also
caused serious trouble and bloodshed (2 Samuel 20); and shortly before David’s death Adonijah, one of
his sons, made an unsuccessful attempt to gain the throne by a palace revolution (1 Kings 1). The strong
personality of David, together with the unflinching support of those who were loyal to him, managed to
overcome all divisive forces. The kingdom was transferred to Solomon as a strong unit.
David’s fundamental loyalty to God and his willingness to repent and accept punishment for sin gained
for him the respect of the prophets Nathan and Gad, and brought divine promises and blessings of a
singular nature. One of his great desires, to build a temple to the God he loved, was not realized. However,
he was promised that his son, who hands were not bloodstained as his were, would build the Temple.
Hence, David bought the land for it, had a design made, and collected the funds, by way of assisting
Solomon in carrying out the plan (2 Samuel 7; 1 Chronicles 21:18 to 22:5).
Solomon (971-931 B.C.) - Solomon, the third ruler of the united kingdom of Israel, whose name was also
Jedidiah, “beloved of Jehovah” (2 Samuel 12:24, 25, seems to have followed the Oriental custom of
taking a throne name, Solomon, “peaceable.” His reign made this title not only appropriate but popular.
For reasons not stated God chose Solomon to be David’s successor and David proclaimed him king
during the course of a palace revolution aimed at placing his older son Adonijah on the throne (1 Kings
144
1:15-49). Although Solomon at first seemed to show clemency toward Adonijah, he did not forget the
incident. Usually the slightest mistake Solomon’s opponents made cost them their lives. Hence, Joab,
instigator of the plot, and Adonijah were both eventually executed, while Abiathar, the high priest, was
deposed (1 Kings 2).
Demonstrating unusual piety in early life, Solomon asked God for wisdom in the difficult task of ruling
the new empire, the extent of whose political problems he seemed to realize. His wisdom, of which
examples occur in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, exceeded that of all other famous sages of
antiquity (1 Kings 3:4 to 4:34). This fame attracted intellectuals of various nations to Solomon’s court, of
whose visits that of the Arabian queen of Sheba seems to have made the greatest impression on
contemporaries (1 Kings 4:34; 10:1-10).
The kingdom Solomon inherited from his father extended from the Gulf of Aqabah in the south almost to
the Euphrates in the north. Never before or after was Israelite territory so extensive. Since Assyria and
Egypt were both very weak at this time, Solomon met no real opposition from his neighbors; and taking
advantage of this situation, he ventured forth on great trading enterprises by land and sea that brought him
wealth never before seen by his people. Hence, the splendor of his reign became legendary, as Matthew
6:28, 29 testifies.
Since the Phoenicians already controlled Mediterranean trade, Solomon turned southward and developed
commercial enterprises with Arabia and East Africa, carrying out his maritime expeditions with the help
of Tyrian sailors (1 Kings 9:26-28). The city of Ezion-geber at the head of the Gulf of Aqabah served not
only as home port for these expeditions but also, apparently, as a commercial center for copper mined in
the Wadi Arabah (the area between the Dead Sea and Ezion-geber). Since Solomon also controlled
numerous overland trading routes, Israel became the great clearing house for Egyptian chariots and linen,
Cilician horses, and the various products of Arabia. Practically nothing entered Egypt from the east, or
Mesopotamia from the south west, without enriching Solomon’s coffers (1 Kings 4:21; 10:28, 29).
The king was also engaged in vast building enterprises. On Mt. Moriah, north of old Jerusalem, he built
an acropolis comprising the magnificent Temple, erected in 7 years (1 Kings 6:37, 38), and his own
palace, which was 13 years in building (1 Kings 7:1). He also built the millo’, or “filling,” thought by
some to have been between Zion and Moriah, and repaired the wall of Jerusalem (1 Kings 9:15, 24). A
chain of chariot cities was built throughout the country to guarantee its safety, and this required a large
standing army and many horses and chariots—both costly items in the national budget (1 Kings 4:26;
9:15-19; 2 Chronicles 9:28). Excavations at Gezer and Megiddo have thrown light on these Biblical
records.
For his manifold enterprises the king depended on forced labor (1 Kings 5:13-18; 9:19-23), and on
Phoenicians for skilled workmen and mariners (1 Kings 7:13; 9:27). The magnificent building projects
and the vast requirements of the army put such a strain on Israelite economy that even Solomon’s
immense revenue proved insufficient to finance the program, with the result that at one time he had to
cede 20 Galilean towns to Phoenicia in payment for needed timber and gold 1 Kings 9:10-14).
Following the custom of Oriental monarchs, Solomon had a large harem, and attempted to foster
international good will by marrying princesses from most of the surrounding nations, including the
Egyptians, and by permitting shrines dedicated to foreign deities (1 Kings 11:1-8 to be built in Jerusalem.
145
The Egyptian princess, who brought as her dowry the city of Gezer, which her father had conquered from
the Canaanites, seems to have been his favored queen inasmuch as he built her a separate palace 1 Kings
3:1; 9:16, 24).
But the outward glory of the kingdom, the sumptuous court ceremonial, the strong new fortresses
throughout the country, the powerful army, and the great trading enterprises could not hide the evident
fact that Solomon’s empire was ready to fall apart. There was unrest among the Israelites, because of high
taxes and forced labor requirements, and among the subjugated nations, which were only waiting for a
sign of weakness to break loose from Jerusalem. Although only three rebels are mentioned by name in the
Bible, Hadad the Edomite, Rezon the son of Eliadah, and the Ephraimite Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:14-40),
who came out openly in opposition to Solomon, events that occurred immediately upon Solomon’s death
imply that there must have been considerable unrest even during his lifetime.
Bible writers, who were more concerned with the religious life of their heroes, give as the main reason for
the decline of Solomon’s power and the breakup of his empire, the king’s departure from the straight path
of religious duty. Although he had built the Temple of Jehovah and at its dedication offered a prayer that
reflected deep spiritual experience (1 Kings 8:22-61), he nevertheless fell into unprecedented polygamy
and idolatry (1 Kings 11:9-11) that led to the adoption of foolish policies and so hastened the fall of his
kingdom.
No sooner had Solomon closed his eyes than the tribes of Israel broke into two factions and several of the
subject nations proclaimed their independence.
The Kingdom of Judah 931—609 B.C. and of Israel 931—722 B.C.
The Kings of Judah; Rehoboam (931-913 B.C.) - With Rehoboam, Solomon’s rash son, the united
Hebrew kingdom came to a close, never to be revived. When Rehoboam went to Shechem for the
coronation, he learned of deep-seated grievances among his subjects over the excessive tax burdens and
the forced labor his father had introduced. Rejecting the advice of experienced counselors to accede to the
reasonable demands of the people, he threatened to increase their burdens and thereby provoked an open
revolt of his northern and eastern subjects under the leadership of Jeroboam, who, on hearing of
Solomon’s death, had returned from exile (1 Kings 12:1-20).
Although he heeded the counsel of the prophet Shemaiah, not to fight his brothers at the time of the
separation of the ten tribes, Rehoboam apparently fought several bloody wars with Jeroboam at a later
time (1 Kings 12:24; 14:30). Also, in his fifth year he experienced the historic attack of Sheshonk
(Shishak) I of Egypt (1 Kings 14:25-28), concerning which Sheshonk’s victory relief on the temple wall
at Karnak still bears witness. This attack may account for the fact that the king of Judah strengthened the
fortifications of a number of towns which guarded the roads leading to Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 11:5-12).
Being, probably, the son of an Ammonite woman, Rehoboam followed his father in having a large harem
and in promoting the worship of pagan gods, with all their abominable rites (1 Kings 14:22-24; 2
Chronicles 11:21).
146
TENTATIVE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DIVIDED KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH
Libyan Dynasties 950- | (Saul, 1050-1011, David, 1011-971, Solomon, 971-931)
750
Twenty- Rehoboam | 931-913 JeroboamI | 931-910 | Ashur-dan II 933-910
second
Dynasty
Abijam 913-911
Sheshonk
I
Asa 911-869 Nadab 910-909 | Adad-nirari II 910-889
Osorkon I Baasha 909-886 | Tukulti-Ninurta | 889-884
Takelot I Elah 886-885
Zimri 885
Osorkon Twenty- Omri 885-874 | Ashurnasirpal IT | 884-859
I third
Dynasty
Pedubast (Tibni) (885-880)
Sheshonk | Sheshonk | Jehoshaphat | 872-848* | Ahab 874-853 | Shalmaneser III | 859-824
I IV
Takelot II | Osorkon Jehoram 854-841* | Ahaziah 853-852
lll
Sheshonk | Takelot III | Ahaziah 841 Joram 852-841
Il
Pami Amenrud Athaliah 841-835 Jehu 841-814 Shamshi-Adad 824-810
V
Sheshonk | Osorkon Joash 835-796 Jehoahaz 814-798 Adad-nirari III 810-782
Vv IV
Amaziah 796-767 Jehoash 798-782 Semiramis
(regent)
147
Azariah Jeroboam 793-753* | Shalmaneser IV | 782-772
Il
Twenty- Twenty- (Uzziah) 790-739* | Zachariah 753-752 Ashur-—dan III 772-754
fourth fifth
Dynasty Dynasty
(of Sais) (Ethiopian)
Shallum 752 Ashur-nirari V 754-746
750-715 715-663 Jotham 750-731* | Menahem | 752-742 | Tiglath—pileser | 745-727
Il
Tefnakht Piankhi Pekahiah 742-740
Bocchoris | Shabaka Ahaz 735-715* | Pekah 752-732*
Shabataka | Hezekiah 729-686* | Hoshea 732-722 Shalmaneser V 727-722
Taharka Sargon II 722-705
Tanutamon Sennacherib 705-681
Twenty— Manasseh 697-642* Esarhaddon 681-669
sixth
Dynasty
663-525
Psamtik I | 663-610 Amon 642-640 Ashurbanipal 669-
627?
Josiah Ashur-etil-ilani | 627?-?
Necho IT 610-595 Jehoahaz 609 Sin-shar—ishkun | ?-612
Jehoiakim 609-598 Ashur-—uballit II | 612-609
Jehoiachin 598-597
Psamtik II | 595-589 Zedekiah 597-586 Babylon
Apries 589-570 Nabopolassar 626-605
(Hophra)
Amasis 570-526 Nebuchadnezzar | 605-562
Psamtik 526-525
148
Il
* Except for Pekah, the earlier years of these reigns that coincide with the closing years of the preceding reigns represent
coregencies. Pekah’s years have been reckoned from 752 B.C. although he took over actual control of the kingdom only after
murdering Menahem’s son Pekahiah.
Note—The dates of Assyrian kings are generally accepted today as fixed with reasonable certainty within a spring-to-spring year;
Ashur-dan IT, for example, began to reign at some time between the spring of 933 and the spring of 932; few are more exact than
that. The dates for Nebuchadnezzar’s reign are astronomically fixed. Regnal dates for Egyptian kings of the Twenty-second to the
Twenty-fifth Dynasty are unknown, and the dates here given for the various dynasties are only approximate. The first kings of the
Twenty-third Dynasty were contemporary with those of the Twenty-second. Regnal years, even those well established, are not
given in exact form (as 931/30, etc.); hence allow the B.C. year to vary plus or minus I, unless the text gives specific accession
dates.
Abijam and Asa (913-869 B.C.) - The next king, Abijam, reigned but briefly (913-911 B.C.), had a war
with Jeroboam I, and followed his father in all his vices (1 Kings 15:1-8).
With Asa, Abijam’s son, a good king again came to the throne (911-869 B.C.). He removed from
influence his grandmother, who had erected an image for Asherah, and banished the male prostitutes as
well as idol worship (verses 10-13). After the first peaceful years of his reign, which he devoted to
religious reforms, Asa was attacked by the Ethiopians under Zerah, probably Cushites from the eastern
shore of the Red Sea (2 Chronicles 14:9-15). When Baasha of Israel occupied part of northern Judah,
probably in the 36th year after the division of the kingdom (2 Chronicles 16:1), Asa did not dare to meet
the northern army with his own inferior forces, but induced Benhadad of Syria to attack and weaken Israel.
For this lack of faith in Jehovah’s help Asa was severely rebuked by Hanani the prophet (verses 1-10).
Asa’s last years were marked by poor health (verse 12), and accordingly he appointed his son Jehoshaphat
as co-ruler, as the chronological data indicate.
Jehoshaphat to Ahaziah (872-841 B.C.) - Jehoshaphat (872-848 B.C.) continued the religious reforms
of his good father. Although he failed to remove all the high places, he is credited with having the Levites
and priests travel through the country and preach the law (1 Kings 22:43; 2 Chronicles 17:7-9). He
terminated the long feud between Judah and Israel by allying himself with the dynasty of Omri, and
married crown prince Jehoram of Judah to Ahab’s daughter Athaliah (2 Kings 8:18, 26), a union that
unfortunately opened the door to Baal worship in Judah. Jehoshaphat also assisted the northern kings in
their military campaigns. With Ahab he went against Ramoth-gilead (2 Chronicles 18:28), and with Joram,
(See NOTE) king of Israel, against Moab (Kings 3:4-27). He also fought a strong confederacy of
Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites (2 Chronicles 20:1-30). Some nations, however, such as the
Philistines and Arabians, were so impressed with Jehoshaphat’s accomplishments that they sought his
friendship. His attempt to revive Solomon’s Ophir expeditions failed when his ships were wrecked at
Ezion-geber (verses 35-37).
NOTE: The names Jehoram and Joram are used interchangeably in the Bible. For the sake of convenience and clarity, however,
Jehoram is used in this chapter to designate the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and Joram, to designate the son of Ahab, king
of Israel (see 2 Kings 8:16).
149
Jehoram (854-841 B.C.), not to be confused with his contemporary, Joram of Israel, was associated on the
throne with his father, Jehoshaphat. Nothing good is said of Jehoram. Influenced by his wicked and
idolatrous wife, he encouraged Baal worship in Judah (2 Kings 8:18), fought unsuccessful wars with the
Philistines and Arabians (2 Chronicles 21:16, 17; 22:1), and died of an incurable disease as Elijah had
predicted (2 Chronicles 21:12-19).
Ahaziah (841 B.C.) followed the corrupt ways of his parents, joined his uncle Joram of Israel in an
unsuccessful war against the Syrians (2 Kings 8:26-29), and was mortally wounded in Jehu’s plot against
Joram of Israel. He died at Megiddo, where he had fled for recovery (2 Kings 9:14-28).
The Kings of Israel; Jeroboam I (931-910 B.C.) - Upon seceding from the dynasty of David, all the
tribes except Judah, Benjamin, and Levi summoned Jeroboam, a political exile recently returned from
Egypt, whither he had fled from Solomon (1 Kings 12:19, 20). Jeroboam was an Ephraimite chief who
had served Solomon as foreman over a gang of workers engaged in building Millo. Resenting Solomon’s
domestic policies, he had revolted. Encouraged by the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh, he apparently grew bold
in his opposition, was probably denounced to Solomon, and consequently fled to Egypt to save his life (1
Kings 11:26-40).
Jeroboam I reigned over the northern kingdom as its first king for 22 years (931-910 B.C.). He made
Shechem his first capital, but later transferred it to Tirzah. Tirzah has not as yet been definitely identified,
but may have been at the present Tell el—Far‘ah, about 7 miles (11 km.) north east of Nablus. Excavations
have recently been carried out at this mound, which is larger than that of Megiddo, but definite clues as to
its identification have not yet been found.
Jeroboam had to fight continual wars with his dissatisfied southern neighbors, first against Rehoboam and
then against Abijam (1 Kings 14:30; 15:7). His land seems also to have been devastated during
Sheshonk’s campaign, although the Bible mentions only Judah and Jerusalem as the victims of attack.
However, the evidence shows clearly that Sheshonk also invaded the northern kingdom as well, for he
inscribed the names of many northern cities on his Karnak relief. Also a fragment of a victory stele of
Sheshonk was discovered in the ruins of Jeroboam’s city of Megiddo. Jeroboam may not have kept his
promises to Sheshonk and thus have invited this military action that was undertaken against him.
Otherwise, it is not clear why Sheshonk, who had given asylum to Jeroboam as a political refugee, so
quickly turned against him once he had become king.
For political reasons Jeroboam introduced religious rites and practices that represented a departure from
the pure worship of Jehovah. At Bethel and Dan he built temples and made young bulls to represent
Jehovah in visible form (1 Kings 12:27-31). For two centuries, the worship of these golden calves became
known as the “sin of Jeroboam.” Of all but three of his successors on the throne of Israel, it is said that
they followed him in this apostasy. An inscribed potsherd found at Samaria throws a curious light on this
calf worship. It contains the personal name of a man called Egeljau, meaning “Jehovah is a calf,” showing
that the Israelites worshiped Jehovah under the form of a young bull, just as the Canaanites thought their
god El to be a bull.
Jeroboam also changed the principal festival month, the seventh of the Hebrew ecclesiastical calendar, to
the eighth (verses 32, 33). From a study of Israelite chronology, it would also seem that a civil calendar
was introduced at this time, which began in the spring, in contrast to the one in use in the southern
150
kingdom, where the civil year began in the autumn. Since the southern kings used the accession-year
system in reckoning their regnal years, Jeroboam introduced the Egyptian nonaccession-year system,
probably for no other reason than to be different.
Jeroboam, who began his reign as a rebel against Rehoboam, and also revolted against God and His
ordained mode of worship, built his kingdom on the weakest possible foundation. This was true in a
political as well as a spiritual sense. Neither his dynasty, which came to an end with the death of his son,
nor any of the succeeding dynasties lasted for more than a few years. The kingdom of Israel had 10
dynasties and 20 kings in the 208 years of its existence. Moreover, the nation never escaped from the
religious impasse into which Jeroboam had led it. Sinking deeper and deeper into the mire of idolatry and
pagan immorality, it was chewed up piecemeal by its enemies, Syria and Assyria, and eventually vanished.
Nadab to Zimri (910-885 B.C.) - The wicked reign of Nadab, Jeroboam’s son (910-909 B.C.), was cut
short when he was murdered by Baasha in the Philistine town of Gibbethon. Thus ended the first dynasty
(1 Kings 15:25-29). This fearful precedent was repeated again and again, until ten different dynasties had
reigned over Israel. Baasha (909-886 B.C.) continued to harass Judah, but lost the territory he acquired
when he was attacked by Benhadad of Damascus, upon receipt of a bribe from Asa, king of Judah (1
Kings 15:16 to 16:7). Baasha’s dynasty ended like the preceding one. His son Elah (886-885 B.C.) was
murdered by Zimri, one of his generals, in his capital Tirzah after a reign of less than two years (1 Kings
16:8-10). Zimri made use of his short reign of only seven days by killing all the relatives and friends of
Baasha. Then Omri, another general of Elah who was proclaimed king by the Israelite army then engaged
in a campaign against the Philistines, marched against Tirzah and took the city. Realizing that resistance
was futile, Zimri refused to surrender to Omri, but set fire to the palace and perished in its flames (verses
11-18).
Omri (885-874 B.C.) - Omri became the founder of a dynasty, four kings of which occupied the throne
over a period of 44 years (885-841 B.C.). At first Omri had to fight another contender for the throne,
Tibni, who had a considerable following among the people. It was only after four years of internal strife
that Omri was able to exterminate Tibni and his followers (verses 21-23). This is apparent from the
chronological statements in verses 15, 23, which assign the 7 days of Zimri’s reign to Asa’s 27th year,
and Omri’s accession to the throne—as sole ruler—in Asa’s 31st year.
Omri’s reign of 12 years was politically more important than the Bible records indicate. By selecting a
Strategic site for his capital, Samaria, he did for Israel what David had done in the selection of Jerusalem.
This hill, 400 ft. high, was situated in a cuplike plain and could easily be defended. It was apparently
never taken by force of arms, and surrendered only for lack of water or food. Excavation has verified the
fact intimated in the Biblical records that the site had been uninhabited before the time of Omri.
Transferring his capital to this site, he began building extensive defenses that were completed by his son
Ahab.
Whether Omri personally had encounters with the Assyrians is unknown, but for the next 100 years, the
Assyrian records refer to Israel as “the land of the house of Omri,” even long after Omri’s dynasty had
vanished. His personality, political success, or business enterprises must have made him famous in the
eyes of contemporaries and later generations.
151
Omri established cordial relations with his Phoenician neighbors, and married his son Ahab to Jezebel,
daughter of the king of Tyre. This alliance introduced the worship of Baal and Asherah into Israel to an
extent previously unknown (1 Kings 16:25). He also granted economic concessions to Damascus and
allowed Syrian traders to have shops in Samaria’s bazaars (1 Kings 20:34). Since Israel received similar
privileges in Damascus only after a military victory over the Syrians, it seems that Omri was defeated by
the Syrians and ceded them certain territory and the economic concessions referred to.
Omri was, however, successful in subduing Moab, as the lengthy inscription on the famous Moabite
Stone admits, where Mesha, king of Moab, says, “Omri king of Israel, he afflicted Moab many days,
because Chemosh was angry with his land”. How valuable the possession of Moab was for Israel can be
seen from the tribute paid by Moab to Omri’s son Ahab. It is said to have amounted—probably
annually—to “an hundred thousand lambs, and an hundred thousand rams, with the wool” (2 Kings 3:4).
Ahab (874-853 B.C.) - With Ahab, the next king, a weak ruler came to the throne of Israel. He had no
strength to resist his strong-willed Phoenician wife, who was determined to make her own religion
supreme. By bringing from her homeland to the royal table hundreds of priests and prophets of Baal and
Astarte, by introducing the immoral rites of the Canaanite cult system, and by persecuting and killing the
worshipers of the true God, Jezebel caused a religious crisis of the first magnitude (1 Kings 18:4, 19).
Because of this crisis and because of the fact that some of the greatest spiritual leaders of Old Testament
times, Elijah and Elisha, lived and worked in Israel at that time, the Bible devotes much space to Ahab.
Elijah was called of God to fight for the survival of true religion. A long drought of three and a half years,
predicted by the prophet as a judgment of Jehovah, saw Ahab’s land brought close to economic ruin. The
drought came to an end with Elijah’s victory over the Baal priests at Mt. Carmel, where a contest between
the power of Jehovah and that of Baal was held (verses 17-40). But so long as Ahab ruled, the pagan cult
of Baal flourished. It is remarkable that Ahab did not dare give Baal names to his children—all their
known names, Ahaziah, Joram, and Athaliah, contain the abbreviated form of Jehovah. His subjects,
however, had few scruples in this matter. Numerous personal names of that and subsequent periods were
connected with Baal—Abibaal, Baala, Baalzamar, Baalzakar, and others—as the inscribed potsherds
found during the excavation of Samaria show.
Ahab became famous for the “ivory house” he built (1 Kings 22:39; Amos 3:15). Numerous beautifully
carved ivory plaques found in the excavation of Samaria reveal that the interior of his palace was
probably decorated with ivory. The designs are similar to those found in ivory decorations of Syria and
Assyria.
As a warrior, Ahab was moderately successful. Twice he defeated the Syrians. Loot from these two
victorious wars enriched him tremendously, and won for him economic concessions in Damascus (1
Kings 20:21, 34). Hence, for a time, he became one of the most powerful rulers west of Assyria. When
Shalmaneser III advanced into Syria, Ahab joined his former enemies to make common cause against the
Assyrians, and mustered the greatest number of chariots of any of the allies. This fact is revealed in
Shalmaneser’s list of his opponents in the battle at Qarqar, which is preserved on a historic rock
inscription on the upper Tigris. The inscription states that of the 3,940 chariots fighting against the
Assyrians 2,000 belonged to Ahab, whereas the other allies had mustered altogether only 1,940. Of the
52,900 foot soldiers Ahab furnished 10,000. When the battle at Qargar had checked Shalmaneser’s
152
advance, Ahab, conscious of his strength, immediately turned against Damascus to regain possession of
the Transjordan city of Ramoth-gilead, but lost his life in that battle (1 Kings 22).
Ahaziah and Joram (853-841 B.C.) - During the short reign of Ahab’s son Ahaziah (853-852 B.C.), who
was fully as corrupt as his father before him, nothing important happened except perhaps the abortive
expedition to Ophir made in cooperation with Jehoshaphat of Judah (2 Chronicles 20:35-37). Since he left
no son, Ahaziah was succeeded on the throne by his brother Jehoram (852-841 B.C.). In his time Mesha
of Moab revolted. Although a military expedition was undertaken in cooperation with Jehoshaphat of
Judah, with disastrous results for Moab, Israel was nevertheless not able to re-establish control of that
country, as the Bible record hints (2 Kings 3:4-27) and the inscription of the Moabite Stone claims.
Joram fought several wars against the Syrians. Through the intervention of the prophet Elisha near
disasters were twice averted (2 Kings 6 and 7), but Joram’s attempt to regain Ramoth-gilead from the
Syrians was as much a failure as that experienced by his father, Ahab. Wounded by Hazael of Syria, he
went to well-watered Jezreel to recuperate, where he was murdered by his army commander Jehu. The
latter proceeded to wipe out the whole family of Omri, including Jezebel, and then usurped the throne
himself (2 Kings 8:28, 29; 9:24 to 10:17).
The Dynasty of Jehu (841-752 B.C.) - Jehu (841-814 B.C.), who had been anointed by a messenger of
Elisha at Ramoth-gilead, not only put an end to the idolatrous dynasty of Omri but eradicated Baal
worship as thoroughly as possible. For his righteous zeal in this respect he was commended by the
prophet, and a promise was made that his descendants would sit on Israel’s throne to the fourth generation
(2 Kings 10:30). Accordingly, his dynasty reigned over the country for about 90 years, nearly half the
time of the nation’s existence. However, Jehu did not break with Jeroboam’s calf worship, and his reform
was, as a result, incomplete.
Breaking with the policies of his predecessors, Jehu voluntarily became a vassal of Shalmaneser III and
paid tribute immediately upon coming to the throne. This event is depicted on the four sides of
Shalmaneser’s Black Obelisk, now in the British Museum. The Hebrew king—the first of whom a
contemporary representation exists—is shown kneeling before Shalmaneser, while his attendants carry as
tribute “silver, gold, a golden saplu-bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden
buckets, tin, a staff for a king, [and] wooden puruhtu.” (The meaning of the words in italics is still
unknown.) Probably Israel reversed its policy toward Assyria in order to secure Assyrian help against
Israel’s chief enemy, Hazael of Syria.
The 17 years of Jehoahaz’ reign (814-798 B.C.) were marked by continual wars against the Syrians, who
oppressed Israel first under Hazael and later under his son Benhadad III (2 Kings 13:1-3). The result was
that Israel lost much of its territory and its army, so that there remained only 10 chariots, 50 horsemen,
and 10,000 foot soldiers (verse 7). A comparison of the 10 chariots of Jehoahaz with the 2,000 of Ahab
reveals the great loss of power the kingdom had suffered in 50 years. It is not known who rescued Israel
from its sad plight, because the “saviour” of verse 5 is not identified. Either his son Jehoash (see verse 25),
or a king of Assyria, or some other person is meant (see on verse 5).
The next king of Israel, Jehoash (798-782 B.C.), was more successful in his wars against the Syrians than
his father had been, and in defeating them three times recovered all the territory lost by Jehoahaz (verse
25). Challenged by Amaziah of Judah, he was forced against his will to fight the southern kingdom—the
153
first war in 100 years between the two brother nations. He worsted Judah’s army at the battle of Beth-
shemesh, captured the king, and victoriously entered Jerusalem. He broke down part of the city’s defenses,
and carried vessels from the Temple, royal treasures, and some hostages to Samaria (2 Kings 14:8-14).
The chronological data require a co regency between Jehoash and his son, Jeroboam II, for about 12 years,
the only co regency in Israel for which there is evidence. Political prudence on the part of Jehoash may
have led to this measure. Knowing the danger a state experiences when a sudden vacancy on the throne
occurs, he probably appointed his son Jeroboam as co-ruler and successor when he began his wars of
liberation against Syria. In this way, continuity of the dynasty was assured even if the king should lose his
life during one of his campaigns.
Jeroboam’s recorded reign of 41 years (793-753 B.C.) includes 12 years of co regency with his father,
Jehoash. Unfortunately, little is known of his apparently successful reign. The Bible devotes only seven
verses to his life (verses 23-29), but they indicate that he regained so much lost territory that his kingdom
almost equaled the empire of David and Solomon in extent. With the exception of the territory held by the
kingdom of Judah, the extent of his rule was practically the same as that of those great kings. He restored
Israelite rule over the coastal and inland regions of Syria, conquered Damascus and Hamath, and
occupied Transjordan south to the Dead Sea, which probably means that he made Ammon and Moab
tributary to Israel. These tremendous gains were possible only because Assyria was suffering a period of
political weakness and was unable to interfere.
Jeroboam II was apparently a strong ruler, but lacked the prudence and foresight of his father. Hence, he
made no provision to guarantee continuity of rule, and his kingdom broke up almost immediately after his
death. His son, Zachariah, reigned for only six months (753-752 B.C.), and fell victim to the murderous
plot of Shallum (2 Kings 15:8-12). Thus, ended Jehu’s dynasty, and thereupon the kingdom returned
quickly to the political impotence that had characterized it during most of its short history.
The Kingdom of Judah From 841 to 750 B.C., Athaliah to Azariah (Uzziah) - The period under
discussion covers the history of Judah during the time of the Jehu dynasty in Israel. The end of Azariah’s
(Uzziah’s) reign did not come in 750 B.C., but this date marks the approximate beginning of the new
Assyrian Empire, when Israel and Judah became fatally involved in the expanding Assyrian conquests.
Since Jotham, Azariah’s son, was appointed co-ruler with his father in 750 B.C., this date is a convenient
boundary for this survey of the history of the kingdom of Judah.
When Ahaziah of Judah was slain by Jehu, in 841 B.C., Ahaziah’s mother, Athaliah, seized the throne for
six years (841-835 B.C.). A daughter of the cruel and unscrupulous Ahab of Israel, she had “all the seed
royal” exterminated in order that her own rule might be assured. However, her henchmen missed the
young prince Joash, who was rescued by the high priest Jehoiada and his wife Jehosheba, a sister of the
late king (2 Kings 11:1-3).
Joash (835-796 B.C.), having been educated in the home of Jehoiada, was placed on the throne at the age
of seven, and Athaliah’s government was overthrown and the wicked queen killed (2 Kings 11:4-21). As
long as the young king allowed Jehoiada to guide his affairs he acted prudently and piously, removing
Baal worship and promoting extensive Temple repairs (2 Kings 12:1-16; 2 Chronicles 24:1-14). After
Jehoiada’s death, however, he waxed indifferent, and even had his benefactor’s son Zechariah stoned to
death for reproving him because of his evil deeds (2 Chronicles 24:15-22). When Hazael of Damascus
154
marched against him, he bought himself and his country off with some of the Temple treasures. This act
of cowardliness, together with his murder of Zechariah and domestic and religious grievances, apparently
resulted in deep-seated opposition to him. He was assassinated by his own servants and buried in the city
of David, not in the royal sepulchers (2 Kings 12:17-21; 2 Chronicles 24:25).
His son, Amaziah (796-767 B.C.), first of all disposed of the murderers of his father and consolidated his
own position. Planning the reconquest of Edom, which had formerly belonged to Judah, he hired 100,000
mercenaries, but later discharged them at the direction of a man of God. With his own Judean forces he
gained a victory over the Edomites and conquered the Edomite capital, Sela, probably Petra. Meanwhile
the discharged mercenaries plundered the cities of northern Judah. As a result of his victory over the
Edomites, Amaziah became overbearing and challenged Jehoash of Israel to fight against him. This
unwise move had disastrous results, for Judah practically became a vassal of Israel. Having also turned
away from the true God, he lost the confidence of his people. He was assassinated at Lachish (2
Chronicles 25:1-28).
Amaziah was succeeded on the throne by his son, Azariah, whose second name—probably a throne
name—was Uzziah (790-739 B.C.). His reign is described as upright, successful, and prosperous. He
promoted the economic development of the country (2 Chronicles 26:10) and raised a large and well-
equipped army (2 Chronicles 26:11-15). This enabled him to campaign against the Philistines and
Arabians (verse 7), and to recover Elath (probably a tell in modern Aqaba) on the Gulf of Aqabah (2
Kings 14:22), as well, probably, as Edomite territory lying between Judah and the gulf. The Ammonites
deemed it wise to buy themselves off with gifts (2 Chronicles 26:8). During his reign a severe earthquake
must have occurred, one that was remembered for centuries as an outstanding event (Amos 1:1; Zechariah
14:5).
The political weakness of Egypt and Assyria, which had assisted Jeroboam II in making Israel once more
a prosperous and powerful nation, had likewise favored Uzziah, with the result that the two kingdoms,
combined, possessed approximately the same area in 750 B.C. as that over which David and Solomon had
ruled. This was the last period of Hebrew prosperity. The accession of Tiglath-pileser in 745 B.C. and the
consequent rebirth of the Assyrian Empire marked the beginning of a rapid decline in power for both
Israel and Judah.
The Last Years of the Kingdom of Israel (752-722 B.C.), Shallum to Hoshea - After the assassination
of Zachariah of Israel, last king of the powerful and long-lived dynasty of Jehu, a 30-year period of
anarchy and political decline followed, bringing the rapid breakup and eventual extinction of the kingdom.
Shallum, the murderer of Zachariah, followed his predecessor in death after a reign of only one month
(752 B.C.). He was in turn assassinated by Menahem (2 Kings 15:8-15). Menahem (752-742 B.C.) was a
cruel ruler who put down all opposition to his rule by extremely severe measures (verse 16). That the
enormous Syrian territories that Jeroboam II once controlled had by this time been definitely lost is
certain, although the fact is not mentioned in the Bible. Recognizing the power of Assyria as something
he would not be able to resist, Menahem followed the wisest procedure possible under the circumstances,
voluntarily paying enormous sums of tribute in order that he might be left in peace by Tiglath-pileser III.
The latter was at that time restoring Assyrian rule to large sections of Syrian territory. Menahem’s tribute,
levied from the population by a special tax, is mentioned both in the Bible (verses 19, 20) and in Assyrian
records.
155
Pekahiah, Menahem’s son, was able to hold the throne for only two years (742-740 B.C.), when he was
assassinated, like so many of Israel’s kings before him. His murderer, Pekah, who counted his regnal
years from the time of Menahem’s accession to the throne, as the chronological data indicate, may have
been related either to Jehu’s dynasty or to King Shallum, and therefore ignored the two last rulers by
including their 12 years of reign as part of his own. Another possible explanation of the problems posed
by Pekah’s chronological data may be that he ruled over an insignificant part of the country and did not
recognize Menahem and Pekahiah as legitimate rulers. Whatever his reasons for usurping their regnal
years may have been, it is quite certain that he enjoyed a sole reign of only about eight years (740-732
B.C.).
Pekah discontinued the pro-Assyrian policy of his predecessors and concluded an anti-Assyrian alliance
with Rezin If of Damascus and other Syrian rulers. He next moved against Judah to enforce its
participation in the anti-Assyrian league. This campaign is known as the Syro-Ephraimite war. Although
the confederates did great damage to Judah and annexed some of its territory, they failed to reach their
aim. Ahaz of Judah asked and received the assistance of Tiglath-pileser of Assyria, who moved into
Pekah’s kingdom, occupied the greater part of Galilee and Gilead, and deported the inhabitants of these
regions to the east (2 Kings 16:5-9; 15:27-29). He also took the seacoast as far as Philistia. The Assyrian
invasion broke the unnatural alliance between Israel and Syria. Tiglath-pileser attacked Syria, conquered
Damascus, and captured King Rezin II (732 B.C.). Syria and the conquered parts of Israel were made
Assyrian provinces and henceforth were administered by Assyrian governors.
Hoshea (732-722 B.C.) - Pekah’s unhappy reign ended in disaster at the hand of an assassin, Hoshea,
who ascended Israel’s throne as its 20th and last king (732-722 B.C.). Tiglath-pileser III claims to have
set Hoshea on the throne, and indicates that Pekah’s rule was overthrown by his subjects as a result of his
disastrous policies. Hoshea paid heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser in exchange for the right of being
tolerated as a vassal king of Assyria. The amount of annual tribute must have been an almost unbearable
burden for the little state, which now consisted of but an insignificant portion of the former kingdom, and
for this reason Israel revolted. Desperation may have been Hoshea’s chief motive in forming a hopeless
alliance against Assyria with So, a weak king of the Twenty-fourth Dynasty of Egypt who ruled over part
of that land at the time. Shalmaneser V, who had in the meantime succeeded his father, Tiglath-pileser I],
on the throne of Assyria, laid siege to Samaria and took that strongly fortified city after three years (2
Kings 18:10). The fall of the city probably occurred in the last year of Shalmaneser V (723-722 B.C.).
Sargon II, who claims in much later inscriptions to have captured Samaria during the first year of his
reign, probably had no right to this claim, at least as king. He was apparently Shalmaneser’s army
commander and may have actually carried out the conquest of the city and the deportation of the 27,290
Israelite captives.
The fall of Samaria marked the end of the northern kingdom of Israel after a tragic history of little more
than two centuries. Conceived and born in the spirit of rebellion, it had no chance of survival. Twenty
kings with an average rule of 10 1/2 years had sat upon the throne, 7 of them as murderers of their
predecessors. The first king had introduced a corrupted worship, setting up idolatrous representations of
Jehovah, and all succeeding rulers followed him in this “sin,” some adding to it the worship of Baal and
Astarte. Had it not been for the tireless ministry of such reformers as Elijah, Elisha, and other prophets,
the kingdom of Israel might not have endured as long as it did.
156
The Kingdom of Judah From 750-731 B.C., Azariah (Uzziah) to Jotham - After a long and successful
reign Uzziah contracted leprosy, which came to him as a punishment for having entered the Temple to
offer incense (2 Chronicles 26:16-20). His son, Jotham, was then appointed coregent (2 Kings 15:5), a
wise move to guarantee the continuity of the dynasty. The policy of appointing the crown prince as
coregent was followed for more than a century, from Amaziah to Manasseh.
The record of Uzziah’s leprosy shows that quarantine was imposed on a victim who contracted that
disease, and that even a king was required to submit to enforced isolation during life and was given a
separate burial when he died. In 1931 a tablet was found in the collection of the Russian Archeological
Museum on the Mount of Olives at Jerusalem, which contains the following inscription in Aramaic,
“Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah—do not disturb” The form of the script shows
that the tablet was cut about the time of Christ or a little earlier, probably at a time when Uzziah’s bones,
for some unknown reason, had been moved to a new resting place.
Jotham (750-731 B.C.), after having ruled for his leprous father for 12 years, in his 16th year appointed
his son Ahaz as ruler. Jotham lived but four years longer (see 2 Kings 15:33 cf. verse 30). Like his father,
Jotham was a comparatively upright ruler. The three contemporary Hebrew prophets, Isaiah, Hosea, and
Micah, probably exerted a good influence upon him. He witnessed the abortive invasion by Rezin of Syria
and Pekah of Israel (verse 37), which was probably his reason for appointing Ahaz as coregent, but the
major threat to Judah’s existence came after this time.
Ahaz (735—715 B.C.) - Jotham’s son Ahaz remained impassive to the influence of the prophets and
worshiped idols. He caused “his son to pass through the fire. ... And he sacrificed and burnt incense in
the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree” (2 Kings 16:3, 4). Distrusting and rejecting
divine help in the Syro-Ephraimite war (Isaiah 7:3-13), he turned to Tiglath-pileser III and bought his aid
with treasures taken from the Temple and the palace (2 Kings 16:7, 8). When Tiglath-pileser conquered
Damascus, Ahaz appeared in his entourage. In Damascus, he became acquainted with the Assyrian mode
of worship and proceeded immediately to introduce it into his own kingdom. Hence, he sent from
Damascus instructions to Jerusalem to have an Assyrian altar made, like one he had seen there. This new
altar replaced the one Solomon had set up for burnt offerings, and was kept in use for some time (verses
10-16).
Ahaz, like his predecessors, seems to have appointed his son Hezekiah (729-686 B.C.) as coregent when
he saw that the kingdom of Judah would probably become involved in trouble with Assyria. For
Hezekiah’s reign, considerable information is available both in the Bible and from secular sources. The
events described in 2 Kings 18 to 20 are paralleled in Isaiah 36 to 39 and 2 Chronicles 29 to 32. Other
information is given in Jeremiah 26:17-19 concerning messages of the prophet Micah in Hezekiah’s time,
and the inscriptions of Sargon II and Sennacherib serve as extra-Biblical source material for the two
Assyrian campaigns of that period.
Hezekiah (729-686 B.C.) - Hezekiah was a good ruler and initiated a series of religious reforms,
probably after the death of his wicked father in 715 B.C. For these he was highly commended by the
Bible writer (2 Kings 18:3, 4). He also established control over areas of Philistia, strengthened the
national defense system, and encouraged trade and agriculture by building warehouses and sheepfolds (2
Kings 18:8; 2 Chronicles 32:28, 29). A remarkable technical accomplishment of his reign was the boring
of a 1,749-ft. (6,533 metres) tunnel from the well of Gihon in the Kidron Valley to a lower pool inside the
157
city of Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 32:4, 30; 2 Kings 20:20). In this way he assured Jerusalem of a
continuous supply of water. Even now, after more than 2,500 years, the waters of Gihon still flow through
this tunnel into the Pool of Siloam.
In 1880 boys wading through the tunnel accidentally discovered a Hebrew inscription, now in the
Archeological Museum at Istanbul, which had been cut into the rock after the completion of the tunnel. It
reads as follows:
“{The tunnel] was bored. And this was the manner in which it was cut. While [the workmen were] still
[lifting up] axes, each toward his neighbor, and while three cubits remained to be cut through, [there was
heard] the voice one calling the other, since there was a crevice in the rock on the right side [and on the
left]. And when the tunnel was bored, the stonecutters struck, each to meet his fellow, axe against axe;
and the water flowed from the spring to the pool for 1,200 cubits, and the height of the rock above the
heads of the stonecutters was 100 cubits.”
Hezekiah, however, is best known for his faith in Jehovah at the time of one of Sennacherib’s invasions of
Judah, which resulted in the miraculous destruction of a vast Assyrian army. Hezekiah had inherited the
Assyrian vassalship from his father, but while the Assyrian kings were busily engaged in Mesopotamia,
Hezekiah strengthened his defenses in the hope of shaking off the Assyrian yoke, with the help of the
Ethiopian kings of the Twenty-fifth Egyptian Dynasty. The prophet Isaiah was vehemently opposed to
such a policy (Isaiah 18:1-5; 30:1-5; 31:1-3), but proved unable to change Hezekiah’s mind. The king was
determined to break with Assyria whatever the results might be, and accordingly severed his connections
with the empire. As a result, he experienced several Assyrian invasions.
The first invasion of Palestine, by Sargon II, was not accompanied by serious results, however. Judah lost
nothing more than its coastal region. Isaiah in the meantime walked the streets of Jerusalem and solemnly
but unsuccessfully proclaimed his prophecies against Egypt and all her allies (Isaiah 20). The first great
blow came in 701 B.C., when Sennacherib invaded Palestine. His army went through the land like a
steam roller, leaving in its path only destruction and ruin. Too late, Hezekiah reversed his policy and sent
tribute to Sennacherib at Lachish. Sennacherib, however, demanded the unconditional surrender of
Jerusalem. That he did not take the city is attested by his own words, which claim no more than that he
laid siege to it. Events elsewhere in his vast domain apparently became more pressing, with the result that
he lifted the siege and returned to Assyria.
The sickness of Hezekiah, described in 2 Kings 20, must have occurred about the same time as the
Assyrian invasion of his 14th year, 15 years before his death (2 Kings 18:13; 20:6; 18:2). That Isaiah,
when promising Hezekiah healing, assured him also that the city would not be taken (2 Kings 20:6)
implies that the sickness came shortly before Sennacherib’s campaign. This explains also, why Hezekiah
was so friendly to the messengers of Merodach-baladan (Marduk-apal-iddina), the exiled king of Babylon,
who, as a sworn enemy of Assyria, Hezekiah probably considered a welcome potential ally in his struggle
for independence. Isaiah, however, who had warned against an alliance with Egypt, was as much opposed
to one with Babylon’s king in exile.
About ten years later, when Taharka of Egypt had come to the throne, Sennacherib returned to Palestine
to force a showdown with the defiant Hezekiah. Sennacherib first dispatched a letter calling upon
Hezekiah to surrender. The king of Judah, encouraged by Isaiah, refused this demand and saw his faith in
158
Isaiah’s sure promise of divine intervention rewarded. The great Assyrian army met with dreadful disaster
before the gates of Jerusalem (2 Kings 18 and 2 Kings 19).
Manasseh to Josiah (697—609 B.C.) - The last 15 years of Hezekiah’s life were probably occupied in
rebuilding his devastated country. Some 10 years before his death he made his son Manasseh coregent as
the chronological data indicate. Manasseh’s long reign of 55 years (697-642 B.C.) was filled with
wickedness. He rebuilt the altars to Baal, served Astarte, used witchcraft, sacrificed little children, and
“worshipped all the host of heaven” (2 Chronicles 33:1-10). The Assyrian kings Esarhaddon and
Ashurbanipal mention Manasseh as their vassal. At some time during his reign, he must have rebelled, for
one of these two Assyrian kings “bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon” (verse 11).
Although it seems somewhat strange that he was taken to Babylon instead of to Nineveh, it should be
remembered that the Assyrian kings of this time considered Babylon their second capital. Manasseh’s
offense cannot have been very serious, for he was pardoned and restored to his former position (verses 12,
13). Assyrian officials had in the meantime administered the country and probably looted it thoroughly.
That Manasseh, upon his return from Babylon to Judah, found an extremely impoverished country, is
apparent from a document of that time wherein it is noted that the country of Ammon paid a tribute of 2
minas of gold, Moab, 1 mina of gold, while poor Judah paid only 10 minas of silver. The troubles
Manasseh experienced at least had the advantage of bringing him to the point of conversion (verses 12-
20).
His son Amon (642-640 B.C.) was fully as wicked as Manasseh had been before his conversion, with the
result that his servants killed him after a brief reign of two years (2 Kings 21:19-26; 2 Chronicles 33:21-
25).
Amon’s young son, Josiah (640-609 B.C.), ascended the throne upon the assassination of his father.
Being religiously inclined, he introduced a number of reforms, beginning at the young age of 15 or 16
years to abolish high places, sacred pagan pillars, and Baal altars (2 Chronicles 34:3). During repair work
on the Temple in Josiah’s 18th regnal year (623-622 B.C.) the “book of the law” was found. Becoming
familiar with its precepts, he inaugurated a thorough purge of paganism and idolatry throughout the
kingdom of Judah and in adjacent areas of the former kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 22 and 23; 2 Chronicles
34:6, 7). This indicates that he had established some kind of political control over territory that had, since
722 B.C., been an Assyrian province. Through the impotence of Assyria after Ashurbanipal’s death in
627 (?) B.C., and the rapid disintegration of the Assyrian Empire, the former territory of the ten tribes
seems to have fallen into Josiah’s lap like an overripe apple. He applied his power and influence to secure
religious reforms throughout Palestine, and might have succeeded except for his untimely death.
This short survey of Judah’s history during the time of the new Assyrian Empire, from Azariah’s last
years to Josiah, reveals a sad picture. Although Judah was spared the tragic fate that befell the northern
kingdom, the country was bled white of all its resources by Assyria’s heavy demands for tribute. In
Hezekiah’s time, a glorious and miraculous deliverance was experienced, but even then, a terrible price
was paid for previous political blunders, and Judah found itself devastated from one end to the other.
Only Jerusalem had escaped destruction. The writers of the Bible, who viewed the political history of
their nation in the light of faithfulness or disobedience to God, show how the many misfortunes that came
to Judah were the result of apostasy. Since half the number of kings reigning during this period were
unfaithful to God, it is not surprising that the nation did not fare well.
159
Egypt in the Saite Period, Twenty-sixth Dynasty (663-525 B.C.)
This period deals with a political revival of Egypt that continued for nearly one and a half centuries. In
contrast to the previous period, when it was ruled by foreigners from the south, Egypt found itself once
more independent, governed by Egyptians from the north. Since this dynasty originated in Sais, it is
usually called the Saite Dynasty.
The history of this period is based to a great extent on Herodotus’ account, and therefore lacks exactness
in many details. For example, the battle of Carchemish, in which Necho II was severely defeated by
Nebuchadnezzar—attested in the Bible and by archeology—is not even mentioned. The reasons for the
defects in Herodotus’ history lie in the fact that he based his work, not on written records, but on oral
information secured during a visit to Egypt about 445 B.C., when the events described lay 80 or more
years in the past. Nevertheless, much correct information may be gained from a careful study of
Herodotus’ reports, which, when sifted and compared with more nearly contemporary sources and with
information given in the Bible, permit an approximately reliable reconstruction of the history of the
period.
Necho I, a city prince of Sais, perhaps a descendent of Tefnakht of the Twenty-fourth Dynasty, had been
given the title of king by Esarhaddon for taking part in a rebellion against the Assyrians during Taharka’s
time he was sent to Assyria as a prisoner, but succeeded in regaining the confidence of Ashurbanipal and
was restored to his office and throne at Sais.
Psamtik I (663—610 B.C.) - After Necho I had been killed by Tanutamon, his energetic son Psamtik I
turned to the Assyrians for help. When the Ethiopian Dynasty was expelled from Egypt by the Assyrians,
Psamtik received the kingship of Memphis as a reward for valuable services rendered during the
campaign, and other parts of the country were put under the rulership of various local princes. However,
when Ashurbanipal was busily engaged in settling the Babylonian revolt led by his own brother, Psamtik
managed through clever moves and without great difficulty to rid himself of Assyrian control. With the
help of Gyges of Lydia, he took Thebes in 655 B.C., and in 14 years all Egypt was in his hands.
Psamtik established and maintained his rule with the help of mercenary forces. Greeks from the Ionian
Islands, Jews from Palestine, Carians from Asia Minor, and others served in his army and manned his
fortresses. He favored Greek colonists, and received an income tax of 20 per cent from the population, but
left priests and soldiers tax exempt in order to retain the loyalty of these two most important classes,
whose good will an Egyptian king needed. The culture of the time represented an imitation or revival of
the classical period. Pyramids of the old kingdom were repaired, ancient titularies were revived, mortuary
inscriptions of the pyramids were again copied and carved into tomb walls, and statues and reliefs were
executed in the ancient style.
After reuniting Egypt and re-establishing its political independence, Psamtik seems to have played with
the plan of rebuilding the Egyptian Asiatic empire of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties. In 640
B.C., he marched into Palestine, where he besieged the Philistine city of Ashdod for years; but the
Scythian invasion of that time put an end to his dreams of empire. He was able to buy himself off by a
heavy tribute and thereby avoided an invasion of Egypt. Having already overextended their lines of
communication, the Scythians seem also to have welcomed Psamtik’s conciliatory advances, and were
160
apparently happy to call off the intended invasion without losing face. From Babylonian records, it is
evident that Egypt assisted Assyria for several years during its last struggle against the Medes and
Babylonians. Psamtik apparently wanted to keep Assyria alive as a buffer state against the new powers of
the east.
Necho II (610—595 B.C.) - When Necho II, Psamtik’s son, came to the throne, he pursued his father’s
policies. He marched north in the spring or summer of 609 B.C. to aid the weak Assyrian forces of Ashur-
uballit against the Medes and Babylonians. King Josiah of Judah, apparently an ally of the Babylonians,
withstood him near Megiddo and died of wounds received there in battle. Necho’s march to the north
failed to stave off the end of the Assyrian kingdom, as is implied by the Babylonian Chronicle. However,
Necho’s army apparently did not suffer a defeat, because three months after the battle of Megiddo he was
able from his temporary headquarters at Riblah in Syria to impose a heavy tribute on Judah and to remove
Josiah’s anti-Egyptian son, Jehoahaz, who was replaced by Jehoiakim, his more pro-Egyptian brother (2
Chronicles 35:20-24; 36:1-4). A stele of Necho found at Sidon is also proof that he exercised some degree
of control over Phoenicia during those years, while the Babylonian Chronicle records two Egyptian
victories over Babylonian garrisons in the year 606/5 B.C.
Having successfully eliminated Assyria, the Babylonians felt they must curtail Egyptian power. The aged
and ailing Nabopolassar therefore sent Nebuchadnezzar, the crown prince, against the Egyptian army at
Carchemish. In the ensuing battle, fought in the spring or early summer of 605 B.C., the Egyptians were
twice beaten, first at Carchemish, and a little later near Hamath. In August, 605 B.C., when
Nebuchadnezzar was the unchallenged master of all Syria and perhaps also of Palestine, he was ready to
invade Egypt. At that time he received the report of his father’s death, and immediately returned to
Babylonia. This saved Necho and Egypt. Although the Egyptian army, after the defeat at Carchemish,
probably never saw the Euphrates again, it remained strong enough to inflict heavy losses on
Nebuchadnezzar’s army once more in 601 B.C.
Necho is credited with having begun a canal between the Nile and the Red Sea, in which project 120,000
men are said to have perished. He abandoned the work before completion, however, when his engineers
convinced him that the Red Sea level was higher than the Mediterranean Sea, and that Lower Egypt
would be flooded as soon as the waters of the Red Sea should pour into the finished canal. Recognizing
this mistake, Darius I had this canal completed some 80 years later. It was in use for many centuries, the
forerunner of the present Suez Canal. Herodotus tells us that in Necho’s time Phoenician sailors
accomplished, in three years, the first circumnavigation of Africa.
Psamtik II (595—589B.C.) - Of Psamtik II, Necho’s son, not much more is known than that he
attempted to reconquer Nubia and that he once visited Palestine (John Rylands Demotic Papyrus, No. IX),
probably to organize anti-Babylonian resistance. Jeremiah 27:3 may refer to the time of this activity,
when envoys of different nations were gathered at Jerusalem, only to be warned by Jeremiah of the
disastrous results of a revolt against the king of Babylonia.
Apries (589—570 B.C.) - Apries, the Biblical Hophra (Jeremiah 44:30), continued his father’s work and
actively plotted against Babylon. It was he who encouraged Zedekiah, king of Judah, in his rebellion
against Nebuchadnezzar. He won a naval battle against Tyre and Cyprus, and occupied Sidon. All
Phoenicia became subject to him for a short time. Egyptian antiquities found at Arvad, Tyre, and Sidon
show how great his influence was throughout the coastal region of Syria. This success made such an
161
impression on the lesser states of Palestine that they put their trust in Egyptian arms and revolted against
Babylon. Hophra actually made an attempt to relieve Jerusalem when it was besieged by
Nebuchadnezzar’s army, but was not able to do more than draw the besieging forces away from
Jerusalem temporarily (Jeremiah 37:5-11).
An Aramaic letter probably written during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar by King Adon of Ashkelon (7?)
was found a few years ago in Egypt. In this letter Adon told Pharaoh that the Babylonian army was
marching along the coast of Palestine toward the south and that it had advanced as far as Aphek. He
requested immediate help from Egypt in order to resist.
The pathetic plea of a Palestinian ruler, who, like King Zedekiah, had listened to the false inducements of
Egypt and rebelled against the Babylonian overlord, helps us to understand the terrible disappointment the
people of Jeremiah’s time must have felt when all their hopes were shattered by the inactivity of the
Egyptian army, or by the inadequate help it provided them in their fight against the Babylonians. This
letter demonstrates how truly were being fulfilled Jeremiah’s prophecies, in which he had exhorted the
nations surrounding Judah to serve Nebuchadnezzar faithfully and warned them of the terrible
consequences if they rebelled against him (Jeremiah 27:2-11).
During the course of a military revolt the army commander Ahmose was proclaimed king of Egypt by the
soldiers. Apries, with the loyal section of his army, then fought against Ahmose, but was defeated, taken
prisoner, and forced to recognize Ahmose as coregent. Two years later a quarrel broke out between the
two rulers, which resulted in another bloody battle and the death of Apries, whom Ahmose great heartedly
gave a royal burial.
In 568 B.C., not long after Apries’ death, Amasis (Ahmose) seems to have been confronted with a serious
threat in the form of a military campaign led by Nebuchadnezzar. Unfortunately, the only document
recording this event is so badly preserved that we know nothing more than that Nebuchadnezzar marched
against Egypt in his 37th regnal year. About three years earlier Ezekiel had prophesied that the Lord
would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as “wages” for his siege of Tyre. Although the result of the
campaign of 568 B.C. against Egypt is unknown, it seems certain that Amasis suffered defeat (see Ezekiel
29:17-20).
For the most part, however, the reign of Amasis (570-526 B.C.) seems to have been peaceful. He was a
friend of the Greeks; and Naucratis, the Egyptian city where most of the Greeks resident in Egypt lived,
became the chief trading center of the country. With his navy, this Pharaoh held Cyprus, and also
concluded treaties with Croesus of Lydia, the Spartans, and, in 547 B.C., with Nabonidus of Babylon
against Cyrus of Persia.
After Ahmose’ long reign his son Psamtik II (526-525 B.C.) reigned for only a year. In 525 B.C.
Cambyses, second king of the Persian Empire, conquered Egypt and deposed Psamtik. The country was
then made a Persian satrapy.
162
The Neo-Babylonian Empire From 626 to 586 B.C.
Babylonia had enjoyed a long and illustrious history before the Assyrians became masters of the
Mesopotamian valley. The empire of Sargon of Akkad and that of the Amorite king Hammurabi had
given a luster to Babylonia that survived the long centuries of political impotence during which the
Assyrians ruled over this part of the ancient world. Babylonian language and script, its literature and
culture, were considered the classical patterns; and for one reason or another Marduk, the god of the
Babylonians, held a magic spell over all Mesopotamian peoples. The Assyrians conquered and occupied
Babylonia repeatedly during the centuries of their supreme rule over Mesopotamia, but usually treated
that country with respect. It was therefore never completely incorporated into the Assyrian Empire, and
always enjoyed a status different from that of other subject nations. Sennacherib dared to destroy the city,
but his contemporaries and even many Assyrians considered this such a sacrilegious and blasphemous
crime that his son Esarhaddon rebuilt the city as soon as he came to the throne.
This ancient and apparently immortal glory that surrounded Babylon made it possible for the Neo-
Babylonian Empire to establish itself quickly in the minds of men after the downfall of the Assyrian
kingdom, and gave its memory a luster that long survived its brief life of less than a century.
The establishment of the new Babylonian kingdom by Nabopolassar and his campaigns against Assyria
have been discussed in connection with the breakup of the Assyrian Empire. Since this chapter deals with
ancient history only to 586 B.C., the year of Jerusalem’s destruction, the events of the last 45 years of the
Babylonian Empire will be discussed later in this book.
Sources - For reasons not yet entirely clear, few contemporary historical inscriptions of the Neo-
Babylonian Empire period are known. Many economic texts shed some light on the period, and building
inscriptions provide information on the extensive construction activities of the Babylonian monarchs. But
no royal annals or display inscriptions yet found have been equal in any way to those of the Assyrian
emperors. The deplorable absence of historical inscriptions and the scarcity of chronicles, earlier
attributed to Babylonian reluctance to record political or military events, are more likely due to the
accidents of preservation and discovery. The Babylonian Chronicle was long known and published in
parts. In 1923 and 1956 collections of those from the Neo-Babylonian period were issued (including
several hitherto unpublished portions found among the cuneiform tablets of the British Museum). This
provides a year-by-year account of political events from Nabopolassar’s accession year to the year 11 of
Nebuchadnezzar except for a break of seven years in Nabopolassar’s reign. The so-called Nabonidus
Chronicle, although broken, gives an account of the happenings of a number of years during the reign of
the last Babylonian king.
On the whole, however, there are extremely few cuneiform records available for a reconstruction of the
history of the new Babylonian period. It is therefore a matter of satisfaction that the Bible contains more
detailed records of this period than of any other period of Bible history. The information provided in the
books of Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, and Daniel, added to that found in Josephus’ works and that of the
available cuneiform records, makes it possible to piece together a fairly clear picture of what happened in
this significant period of the ancient world that marked the end of the kingdom of Judah.
Chronology - The chronology of the Neo-Babylonian Empire is fixed. A tablet in the Berlin Museum
contains the records of numerous astronomical observations made during the 37th year of
163
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. When these records were checked by astronomers it became apparent that the
phenomena described occurred in the Babylonian calendar year equivalent to 568/567 B.C., spring to
spring. Since it is possible in this way to determine the 37th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar to the exact
day, in terms of B.C. dates, it is easy with the help of the tens of thousands of dated business documents
of that time to reconstruct the complete reign of this monarch and of the other kings of the Neo-
Babylonian Empire. Since the chronology secured in this manner agrees perfectly with the list of
Babylonian kings contained in the Canon of Ptolemy, there is no doubt that the chronology of the new
empire period is based on solid facts.
Nabopolassar (626-605 B.C.) - Events exceptionally favored Nabopolassar, who had been an
independent monarch over Babylonia under the last shadow kings of Assyria. He gained all for which
Marduk-apal-iddina (Merodachbaladan) had fought hard for many years. He not only established a
Babylonian empire under a Chaldean monarchy but also had the joy of seeing Assyria, his greatest enemy,
fall in the dust. When Nineveh was destroyed by the Medes and Babylonians in 612 B.C., Cyaxares and
Nabopolassar divided between themselves the territory of the fallen Assyrian colossus. Thus there fell to
the Babylonian king an empire that, nominally at least, reached from the Persian Gulf through
Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine, to the borders of Egypt. The Medes were satisfied to receive the
northern and Anatolian provinces of the former Assyrian Empire. Furthermore, relations between the two
new powers remained cordial and were never disturbed—as far as our incomplete knowledge of that
period goes. Their mutual friendship was sealed by a marriage between Nebuchadnezzar, Nabopolassar’s
son and heir, and the Median princess Amuhia (Amyhia).
The years after the fall of Nineveh were used to consolidate the newly acquired territory and to crush the
remnants of the Assyrian kingdom that fought for existence under their king Ashur-uballit II in the region
of Haran, aided by Egyptian forces. For several years, the Babylonian king gained no decisive victory,
though Assyrian strength must have been weakened. By 609 B.C. the Assyrian forces seem to have been
completely eliminated, and from that time on are not mentioned any more as military opponents, but King
Necho of Egypt had, through his victory over Josiah, come into possession of Judea, and had also
occupied Syria and parts of northern Mesopotamia. Since Nabopolassar considered himself the heir to the
territories that had belonged to the Assyrian Empire, he could not permit Egypt to remain in possession of
the Asiatic territories occupied by Necho. By the end of 606 B.C., Nabopolassar had pacified his
Mesopotamian possessions and could pay more attention to the Egyptian menace in the west, where the
Babylonian garrison forces were sorely pressed. Since the aged king was ailing, the crown prince,
Nebuchadnezzar, was entrusted with the campaign against the Egyptians. Decisive victories over the
Egyptian army were gained first at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and a few weeks later near Hamath in
Syria. In the summer of 605 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar was ready for the invasion of Egypt when news
reached him of his father’s death on the 8th of Ab (approximately August 15, 605). This led to his
immediate return to Babylon and his accession to the throne on Elul 1 (approximately September 7).
Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 B.C.) - In Nebuchadnezzar II, Nabopolassar had a worthy successor, and
Babylon a successful and illustrious king. He carried out many military campaigns, especially against
Judah, as we know from the Bible and from the recently discovered Babylonian Chronicle, and was able
to pacify the countries belonging to his empire. Yet, he devoted most of his energies and resources to
works of peace. His chief ambition was to make his capital the most glorious metropolis of the world.
164
Tremendous sums of money were spent in building palaces, temples, and fortifications; Nebuchadnezzar
could say, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built?” (Daniel 4:30).
The Kingdom of Judah From 609 to 586 B.C.
Chronology - Fortunately, the chronology of Egypt and Babylonia is well established for the period from
Josiah to Zedekiah. Certain Judean regnal dates synchronize with Babylonian dates based on astronomical
records; thus, the B.C. dating of the kings of Judah can be established with a high degree of accuracy. The
most recently published portion of the Babylonian Chronicle moves five kings of Judah (Manasseh to
Jehoiakim) a year earlier than dated in previous printings, but it confirms several key events and yields
precise dates for the accessions of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah.
Josiah’s Death, and Jehoahaz - In a previous section of this chapter, the history of Judah was traced as
far as King Josiah’s time. A major part of his reign fell in the years of the disintegration of the Assyrian
Empire, when the Assyrians were not strong enough to control their western possessions effectively and
Babylonia had not yet taken over these possessions. Josiah took advantage of the situation to extend his
influence, perhaps even political control, over considerable parts of the territory that had formerly
belonged to the kingdom of Israel, and that had more recently been administered as an Assyrian province.
For a time Josiah profited from the Mesopotamian situation. However, he watched with some
apprehension the rebirth of Egyptian power. In view of the fact that Egypt was committed to the policy of
preventing the complete collapse of Assyria, Egyptian forces must have traversed Palestine several times
during Josiah’s reign. Josiah may have felt that Pharaoh had other plans than merely to keep Assyria
alive—aspirations of rebuilding the former Egyptian Empire in Asia—and that he proposed to exchange
military help with Assyria for political concessions in Syria and Palestine. It is unknown whether Josiah
had actually made an agreement with Nabopolassar of Babylon and resisted Necho II in order to aid his
Babylonian ally, or whether he took his stand merely on the basis of his conviction that if the Egyptians
and Assyrians should defeat the Babylonians, Judah would be forced to submit either to Egypt or to
Assyria. One or the other reason must have prompted his unfortunate decision to meet Necho and prevent
him from marching north to assist the Assyrians.
The battle took place at Megiddo, in 609 B.C. The date is based on the Babylonian Chronicle, which
mentions the Egyptians as aiding the Assyrians at Haran in that year. Josiah was mortally wounded (see
on 2 Chronicles 35:20-24), and defeated Judah had to submit to Egypt. However, at that time Necho
hurried on to the north without following up his victory over Josiah. He was more concerned with a
decision against Babylonia, since a victory there would give him a free hand in Palestine.
In the meantime Jehoahaz, a 23-year-old son of Josiah, was crowned in Jerusalem by popular demand,
though he was not the oldest (2 Kings 23:30, 31). He seems to have been known as one who would follow
his father’s policies, being probably pro-Babylonian as his father had been, which to Pharaoh-Necho
meant that he was anti-Egyptian. After consolidating his position in northern Mesopotamia and Syria,
Necho decided to punish Judah for interfering with his plans, and accordingly summoned Jehoahaz before
him at Riblah, in Syria. This demand and the fact that Jehoahaz obeyed show clearly that Judah must have
suffered heavy losses in the battle of Megiddo, and that the country was powerless to resist Necho, who
must by now have considered himself the unquestioned lord of Palestine. Necho took the young king,
165
after he had reigned only three months, and sent him a prisoner to Egypt. In his stead Necho appointed
Eliakim, an older brother of Jehoahaz, under the name of Jehoiakim. The new king was apparently known
for pro-Egyptian sympathies. A tribute of 100 talents of silver and 1 talent of gold was imposed, and this
he exacted from the people (2 Kings 23:32-35).
Jehoiakim (609—598 B.C.) - Jehoiakim’s 11 years as king (609-598 B.C.) were marked by gross
idolatry and wickedness, which hastened Judah’s final downfall. The exact opposite of his pious father, he
distinguished himself by various godless acts, even murdering a prophet (2 Kings 23:37; Jeremiah 26:20-
23).
Jehoiakim was probably an Egyptian vassal until his third regnal year. In 605 B.C., according to the
recently discovered Babylonian Chronicle, Nebuchadnezzar, crown prince of Babylon, was dispatched by
his father to fight against the Egyptians in northern Mesopotamia. In two battles, at Carchemish and near
Hamath, he decisively defeated the Egyptians, and was able to conquer Syria and Palestine. It must have
been while following the defeated Egyptians toward their homeland that Nebuchadnezzar besieged
Jerusalem and forced Jehoiakim to become a vassal of Babylon, taking a part of the Temple treasure and
certain princes as hostages—among them Daniel and his friends (Daniel 1:1-6). News of his father’s
death sent Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon by the shortest possible route to take the throne, leaving in
the hands of his generals the prisoners already taken during the campaign, with orders to retreat to
Mesopotamia (Josephus Contra Apion i. 19). When a king died there was always danger of a revolt at
home or of a usurper’s attempt to seize the throne. For this reason, Nebuchadnezzar did not want his army
fighting in faraway Egypt at a time when it might be urgently needed in Babylonia.
Since Nebuchadnezzar found no opposition at home he could immediately return to the task of bringing
under full control the western territories that, as the result of the battles at Carchemish and near Hamath,
had fallen into his lap. Hence, we find him campaigning in “Hatti-land,” as the Babylonians called Syria
and Palestine, during each of the following three years. Resistance must have been light, because the only
military action mentioned is the capture and destruction of Ashkelon. His campaigns may have served
chiefly to organize the territory and collect the annual tributes.
During these three years of comparative quiet, it would appear that Jehoiakim of Judah remained a loyal
vassal of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:1). However, since the annual tribute to Babylon rested heavily
upon the land, he felt a strong urge to switch his allegiance to Egypt, which was regaining strength. This
directed Nebuchadnezzar’s attention toward Egypt, the chief cause of the troubles with his vassals. A
battle fought with the Egyptian army in Kislev (November—December), 601 B.C., seems to have ended in
a draw, with heavy losses, because the Babylonians withdrew. The records tell us that Nebuchadnezzar
remained at home during the following year and built up a new army before venturing out on a new
campaign toward the end of 599 B.C. Yet in the meantime he allowed several of his western vassal
nations, aided by some of his own troops, to raid and harass Judah (2 Kings 24:2). At that time, 3,023
Jews were deported to Babylon (Jeremiah 52:28). In December, 598, Chaldean troops probably were able
to take Jerusalem. Once more Temple treasures were taken to Babylon (2 Chronicles 36:7). The king was
placed in fetters, to be taken to Babylon (2 Chronicles 36:6) and punished for his rebellion. But this plan
was apparently not carried out. Jehoiakim seems to have died before he could be deported, either from
rough treatment at the hands of the Chaldeans or from natural causes. His body was cast outside the city
gates and lay there exposed to heat and cold for several days before it received a disgraceful burial—like
166
that “of an ass” (Jeremiah 22:18, 19; see also 2 Kings 24:6; 2 Chronicles 36:6; Jeremiah 36:30; Josephus
Antiquities x. 6. 3).
Jehoiachin (598/97 B.C.) - Jehoiakim was succeeded by his 18-year-old son, Jehoiachin, who reigned
only three months (598/97 B.C.). It is not known why Nebuchadnezzar proceeded to Jerusalem to take the
new king prisoner. In any case the records inform us that Nebuchadnezzar’s army, shortly after
Jehoiachin’s accession, began another western campaign. When Nebuchadnezzar arrived at Jerusalem,
Jehoiachin surrendered himself, his mother, and his whole staff on Adar 2 (approximately March 16), 597,
a specific date established by the Babylonian Chronicle. Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin to Babylon as
hostage and made his uncle, Zedekiah, king in his stead. Also he now transported to Babylonia all the
remaining vessels of the Temple treasure, 7,000 soldiers, and all the skilled craftsmen he found. The latter
would be useful in his extensive building enterprises. (See 2 Kings 24:8-16.)
Jehoiachin, still considered the king of Judah, was more or less only a hostage in Babylon. This
conclusion is based on the fact that there was agitation in Judah and among the captives in Babylon, who
expected Jehoiachin to be returned to the throne and the sacred vessels to be brought back (Jeremiah 28:3,
4; and 29). Since the Jews in Babylon could not date events according to the regnal years of Jehoiachin
without offending the Babylonians, they apparently labeled such events—as Ezekiel did—by the years of
his captivity (Ezekiel 1:2; 40:1).
These conclusions find some confirmation in archeological discoveries. Three clay jar handles unearthed
at Beth-shemesh and Tell Beit Mirsim (probably Debir) all bear the imprint of the same stamp seal,
“Belonging to Eliakim, steward of Jehoiachin.” These finds seem to indicate that Jehoiachin’s property
had not been confiscated, but that it was administered in his absence by his steward. Furthermore, several
tablets found in the ruins of Babylon, dated in the year 592 B.C.— five years after Jehoiachin’s
surrender—contain lists of food-stuff provided by the royal storehouse for certain persons who were fed
by the king. Among them Jehoiachin is repeatedly mentioned as “king of Judah,” together with five of his
sons and their tutor Kenaiah. These facts—that Jehoiachin is called king, that he received 20 times as
much ration as any other person mentioned in these records, and that any reference to his imprisonment is
lacking—seem to indicate that he was held by Nebuchadnezzar for the time, in anticipation of the day
when he should be restored to his throne, if and when conditions in Judah might make such a course of
action advisable.
At a later time, either in connection with the incidents described in Jeremiah 29 or at the time of
Zedekiah’s rebellion, Jehoiachin was definitely imprisoned. This imprisonment continued until the 37th
year of his captivity, when Nebuchadnezzar’s son, Amel-Marduk, the Biblical Evil-merodach, released
and exonerated him (2 Kings 25:27-30). This event, however, falls in the period of the Exile and is
therefore not within the limits of this book.
Zedekiah (597-586 B.C.) - When Nebuchadnezzar put Jehoiachin’s uncle on the throne of Judah, he
changed his name from Mattaniah, “gift of Jehovah,” to Zedekiah, “righteousness of Jehovah.” He
probably did this so that this name might be a continual reminder to the king of his solemn oath of loyalty
to Nebuchadnezzar, by his own God Jehovah (2 Chronicles 36:13; Ezekiel 17:15-19). Zedekiah, however,
was a weak character; and although he was sometimes inclined to do right, he allowed himself to be
swayed from the right path by popular demands, as the history of his reign clearly shows.
167
For a number of years—according to Josephus, for eight years (Antiquities x. 7. 3)—-Zedekiah remained
loyal to Babylonia. Once he sent an embassy to Nebuchadnezzar to assure him of his fidelity (Jeremiah
29:3-7). In his fourth year (594/593 B.C.) he made a journey to Babylon (Jeremiah 51:59), being perhaps
summoned to renew his oath of loyalty or possibly to take part in the ceremonies described in Daniel 3.
Later on, being under the constant pressure of his subjects, particularly the princes, who urged him to seek
the aid of Egypt against Babylon, Zedekiah made an alliance with the Egyptians (see Jeremiah 37:6-10;
38:14-28). In doing so he completely disregarded the strong warnings of the prophet Jeremiah. This
alliance was probably made after Psamtik II had personally appeared in Palestine 590 B.C. and given all
kinds of assurances and promises of help.
Nebuchadnezzar, who had prudently refrained from attacking Egypt, was, nevertheless, not willing to lose
any of his western possessions to Egypt. He therefore marched against Judah as soon as Zedekiah’s
perfidy became apparent. Taking all cities of the country, he practically repeated what Sennacherib had
done a century earlier, systematically devastating the whole land. From this unhappy period, come the
famous Lachish Letters (see on Jeremiah 34:7) recently found in the excavations of that city. These letters,
written in ink on broken bits of pottery, were sent by an officer in charge of an outpost between Azekah
and Lachish to the commandant of the latter fortress. They vividly illustrate the deplorable conditions
prevailing in the country at that time, and in many details corroborate statements made by Jeremiah, who
lived in Jerusalem then.
The siege of Jerusalem began in earnest on January 15, 588 B.C. (2 Kings 25:1), and lasted until July 19,
586 B.C. (2 Kings 25:2; Jeremiah 39:2), when the Chaldean army finally broke through the walls into the
city, where unspeakable famine conditions prevailed. Once the 30-month-long siege was interrupted
briefly by the unsuccessful attempt of the Egyptian army to defeat the Babylonians (Jeremiah 37:5).
When the breakthrough came Zedekiah made an attempt to escape. In the confused fighting that followed
the breakthrough, he managed to leave the city and reach the plain of Jericho, but was overtaken there.
Carried to Nebuchadnezzar’s headquarters at Riblah, Zedekiah saw his sons killed; then his eyes were put
out and he was sent to Babylon in chains. His chief ministers were executed and all others carried away (2
Kings 25:4-7, 19-21; Jeremiah 52:10).
Jerusalem was systematically looted and then destroyed. The walls were torn down, and the Temple, the
palaces, and all other houses were burned to the ground. The fire may have raged for three days in the
unhappy city—August 15-18, 586 B.C.—as the two dates of 2 Kings 25:82 and Jeremiah 52:12, 13, seem
to indicate. Most of the Jews were carried as captives to Babylonia, but some of the poorest of the country
were left behind. Nebuchadnezzar appointed over them as governor a Jew, Gedaliah, at Mizpah (2 Kings
25:22; 2 Chronicles 36:20).
Gedaliah as Governor (586 B.C.) - Gedaliah seems to have served as governor for only a short time,
although the lack of a year date in 2 Kings 25:25 leaves it uncertain how long after the fall of Jerusalem
he was assassinated. Jeremiah, who had been a prisoner in Jerusalem at the fall of the city, was released
by Nebuchadnezzar’s army commander and joined Gedaliah at Mizpah. Also, several Jewish field
commanders who had escaped from the debacle found their way to Mizpah. One of them, Ishmael, a
relative of Zedekiah, a fanatical royalist, killed Gedaliah, his staff, and the Chaldean garrison of Mizpah,
and tried to join the Ammonites, probably planning to continue the fight against Nebuchadnezzar with
their help. This plan was thwarted by Johanan, another general of Zedekiah, who intercepted Ishmael and
168
liberated his captives. Ishmael escaped with eight men to the Ammonites, but Johanan and the remnants
of the army that were with him, fearing Nebuchadnezzar, went to Egypt and forced Jeremiah and Baruch
to join them. Thus ends Judah’s pre-exilic history.
169
CHAPTER SIX
THE HEBREW CALENDAR IN OLD TESTAMENT TIMES
Origin of the Hebrew Calendar
Those who have Jewish neighbors know that they celebrate their New Year’s Day, which they call Rosh
Hashana, in the autumn. If we ask a rabbi the date of Rosh Hashana, he will explain that it is the first of
the Jewish month Tishri, but that it falls on different dates in our September or October in successive
years, since it comes approximately at the new moon. The reason for this is that the Jews have a lunar
calendar, now modified in form but originally reckoned by the moon. In ancient times, the appearance of
the new crescent after sunset, following several moonless nights, marked the beginning of the first day of
each new month. The rabbi may explain further that the New Year season lasts through Yom Kippur (the
Day of Atonement), on the 10th of the month, the most solemn day of the whole year, when Jews attend
special synagogue services.
If we consult the Bible on these points, we find that New Year’s Day (called the Blowing of Trumpets)
and the Day of Atonement are the 1st and 10th of the 7th month (Levites 23:24-32), not of the Ist month;
and that the Passover, which always comes in the spring, is in the 1st month (Levites 23:5). We find the
answer to this puzzling situation, and to other problems, by a study of the origin and nature of the Jewish
calendar as set forth in the Bible and other ancient records.
The early Hebrew calendar as given in the Bible was admirably adapted to the needs of an ancient people
who had no clocks, no printed calendars, and, as far as we know, no astronomy. It was based on simple
principles—the day beginning with sunset, the week counted by sevens continuously, the month
beginning with the crescent moon, the year regulated by the harvest season.
Of course such a calendar must be adjusted to keep the year in step with the seasons, but so also must our
solar calendar, used in most of the world today. The difference is that our year is only about a fourth of a
day less than the true year of the seasons, determined by the sun, whereas the common lunar year of 12
“moon” months is 10 or 11 days shorter than the true solar year. We adjust our solar-calendar year by
letting the error run for 4 years, until a whole day is accumulated, which we add as the 29" of February.
In the lunar calendar the larger error of 10 or 11 days is allowed to run until a month is accumulated; by
adding a 13th month every 2 or 3 years (7 times in 19 years) this difference is compensated for.
The Israelites did not possess the advanced astronomical knowledge required for the development of the
modern solar calendar with its leap-year adjustments, but God instituted at the Exodus a simple yet
efficient method of keeping the calendar year from moving permanently out of step with the seasons of
the natural year.
The Hebrews inherited the elements of the calendar from their Semitic ancestors, who from time
immemorial had reckoned their months by the moon. To Abram, presumably, as to his Mesopotamian
neighbors in Ur, each new month, and consequently the first day of the month, began with the evening of
170
the visible crescent moon, and his descendants would have no reason to change the practice. Even when
they were in Egypt there was no need of their abandoning their evening-to-evening day and their lunar
month for the 365-day Egyptian solar calendar, for these bearded Semitic shepherds, who were an
abomination to the Egyptians, lived apart in Goshen and followed their own customs.
Though they largely disregarded the Sabbath, they undoubtedly preserved the knowledge of this weekly
holy day and of the lunar month—for even a slave brick maker can count seven days and can keep track
of the return of the crescent. But it is quite possible that they became confused as to which new moon was
to mark the beginning of the calendar year. If they had retained the method of adding a month
periodically, as was done in Mesopotamia by the Babylonians and Assyrians, we have no record of it.
Indeed, there is no mention of the practice in the Bible, although it is evident that the Mosaic calendar
implies it.
Either because they had lost track of the year, or because God wished to cut them off from the heathen
worship associated with the Canaanite year that began in the autumn, God definitely pointed out the
spring month from which they were to reckon the year. Shortly before the Exodus He instructed Moses
that “this month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you”
(Exodus 12:2). There was no systematic code of calendar rules, but the civil and ceremonial laws given
through Moses contain incidental references to the elements of the calendar.
The Elements of the Hebrew Calendar
The Day From Evening to Evening - The day began for the Hebrew in the evening, as we know from
the rule that the 10th day of the 7th month was to begin on the evening of the 9th (Levites 23:32), that is,
when the sun set at the close of the 9th day. The fact that the day ended at sunset is shown in the
directions for purification: One who was ceremonially unclean 7 days went through certain purifying
ceremonies on the 7th and was clean again “at even” (Numbers 19:16, 19); and one who was unclean
until even was said to become clean “when the sun is down” (Levites 22:6, 7). Obviously then, if the 7th
day of a period ends at sunset, then all the days of the period must end at sunset.
The Week Marked Off by the Sabbath - The week was divinely marked out, even before the giving of
the law, by the double portion of manna on the 6th day and the withholding of it on the 7th (Exodus 16).
It was the only element of the calendar enshrined in the Decalogue, for the Sabbath has a moral aspect
that is not connected with mere dates and calendars. It is a sign of allegiance to the Creator, and it was
revealed to Israel as part of the moral law, and as a symbol of sanctification (Exodus 31:13), not only of
Gods power to create, but also of His power to re-create. Therefore the week is independent of all
calendars. Its purpose is not to reckon dates. Indeed, it is incommensurate with any calendar month or
year.
The Month Regulated by the Moon - The two Hebrew words for “month” are (1) yerach, related to
yareach, “moon,” and (2) chodesh, literally “new one,” referring to the “new moon,” the “day of the new
moon,” and thus a lunar “month,” from the root chadash, “to renew.” Yareach is used infrequently, the
common word being chodesh. The month in which the Israelites left Egypt was set as the first of the year.
This was called Abib, the “month of ears” of grain. It was the spring month of the opening Palestinian
harvest, later called Nisan, as it is known to the present day (see Exodus 23:15; 34:18; Deuteronomy 16:1;
171
Esther 3:7). This was evidently a lunar month to which the Hebrews were already accustomed, because
nothing is said of instituting a new kind of month. If the change had been from a solar to a lunar type,
some sort of instructions as to how to reckon the new month would have been necessary. The innovation
was merely that “this month” was to be the first, as it had presumably not been before.
The first of the month was considered a special day, celebrated by the blowing of trumpets and by extra
sacrifices (Numbers 10:10; 28:11-14). New moons are frequently mentioned along with Sabbaths and
festivals (2 Kings 4:23; Isaiah 1:13, 14; 66:23, etc.).
That the month began with the new moon is shown by an incident in the time of David. After Saul had
sought his life, David tested the king’s attitude toward him by absenting himself from the royal table on a
new moon feast. Saul said nothing on the new moon, but his wrath burst forth when David’s place was
empty again “on the morrow, which was the second day of the month” (1 Samuel 20:24-27). Obviously,
then, the first day of the month, as would be expected in a lunar calendar, was the new moon.
Pre-Exilic Names of the Months - We have very little information about the Jewish months before the
Babylonian Exile. There were 12 months (1 Kings 4:7), but we do not even know their names, except for
the 1st month Abib (Exodus 13:4; 23:15; 34:18; Deuteronomy 16:1), the 2nd month Zif (1 Kings 6:1), the
7th month Ethanim (1 Kings 8:2), and the 8th month Bul (1 Kings 6:38). These were evidently Canaanite
names; Phoenician inscriptions have been found that mention Ethanim and Bul. This is not surprising,
since the Hebrew and Canaanite languages were closely related. More often the Bible refers to the months
by number, previous to the Exile, rather than by name (Exodus 12:2; 16:1; 19:1; 1 Kings 12:32; Jeremiah
28:1; 39:2).
Length of the Month - Nothing is said of the number of days in a month. In later times, the lengths of the
months and the intervals between the 13-month years were calculated by astronomical rules and fixed in a
systematized calendar. But in the beginning the months must have been determined by the direct
observation of the moon. Since the phases of the moon repeat themselves every 29 1/2 days,
approximately, the crescent would reappear in the evening at the close of the 29th or 30th of the month.
Ordinarily the months would alternate 30 and 29 days, but this was not always true. There are not only
minor variations in the motion of the moon that affect the uniformity of the intervals, but also weather
conditions that sometimes prevent the visibility of the crescent. We are told in later Jewish writings that it
was the custom to look for the moon at the close of the 29th. If it was visible in the evening sky after
sunset, the day then beginning was reckoned as the first of the new month; if it was not yet visible, or was
obscured by clouds, that day was the 30th. The day following the 30th always began the new month, even
if the moon was still obscured by clouds. Thus, there could be two or even three 30-day months in
succession, although this was not usual.
The Moslems of the present day count their months by the observed moon (except that they use the
Gregorian calendar also in their contacts with the Western world), and thus in isolated districts the lunar
date may be one day behind or ahead of the date in a neighboring village. But the Jews, living in a
relatively small area, seem to have had a centralized system controlled by the priests at Jerusalem. There
are traditional accounts of witnesses reporting the appearance of the crescent, and of fire signals heralding
the beginning of the new month from hilltop to hilltop throughout the land, so that all Israel could begin
the month together.
172
In later times, certainly in the revised form of the calendar instituted some centuries after the time of
Christ, the 6 months from Nisan through Elul ran 30 and 29 days alternately, and any adjustments
required by the moon’s variation were made in the other part of the year, so as to leave the intervals
between the festivals always the same. Such adjustments would not have been made while the beginning
of each month still depended on the observation of the crescent. David’s remark that “to morrow is the
new moon” (1 Samuel 20:5) does not necessarily indicate that the months were fixed in advance by
calculation. David could have estimated it from the preceding month without being more than one day off,
and he may have been speaking on the 30th, which would necessarily be the last day of the month. We
have no way of knowing when any system of regular calculation came in, but it was probably a late
development. The dates on clay-tablet documents from Babylonia, written many centuries after David,
show no fixed sequence of 30-day and 29-day months, and Babylonian computations made in advance for
a specific month often left a days uncertainty.
Lunisolar Year - The number of months in a year was not specifically mentioned in the Law (for a later
period, see 1 Kings 4:7), though that was probably taken for granted from the beginning, for both Egypt
and Mesopotamia had 12 months. The 13th lunar month was always one of the 12 doubled. But 12 lunar
months end approximately 11 days earlier than a complete solar year reckoned from the same starting
point. Hence it would have become evident very early that in a series of uncorrected lunar years (such as
the Moslems use to this day), the calendar would move gradually earlier in relation to the seasonal year, at
the rate of about 11 days annually. Eventually it would make a complete circuit of the seasons and count
an extra year in about 33 solar years, or about 3 years extra in a century. The effect on chronology is
obvious. But no known Semitic calendar of ancient times was allowed to run uncorrected. The adjustment
was made in Babylonia by the periodic intercalation, or insertion, of an intercalary month every few
years—that is, by repeating either the 6th or the 12th month—at first in a rather irregular fashion, later in
a 19-year cycle.
Such a lunar calendar, of 12 and 13 months, adjusted in this manner to the solar year, is sometimes called
a lunisolar year. It varies within a month in relation to exact dates in the solar calendar. That is why Easter,
dated originally from the Passover, and still calculated by a lunar-calendar system, wanders over different
dates in our calendar, within the range of about a month. Yet the lunisolar calendar, such as that of the
Mesopotamians and the Jews, was nearer correct in a long series of years than the Egyptian solar calendar,
which was reckoned as 365 days continuously without a leap year. It is true that a single Egyptian year of
365 days was nearer the true year than a Jewish or Babylonian year of 354 or perhaps 384 days, but the
Egyptian calendar never corrected its smaller error, and therefore wandered off a day every 4 years, and
accumulated this difference. On the other hand, the lunisolar calendar, with a larger variation each year,
periodically corrected itself, so that a given number of Jewish years equaled the number of true solar
years in the same period. There could never be an extra Hebrew year in 33 seasonal years, for every
Jewish year had a Passover, held in connection with a harvest, and there can be only 33 harvest seasons in
33 years.
The Year Regulated by the Festivals - The Hebrews needed no astronomical cycles to correct their
calendar year so long as they kept the Passover as it was prescribed in the Law. Since God wished to give
the Israelites a system of annual festivals to teach religious lessons in connection with seasonal events, He
provided for a calendar system that would enable them to know in advance the regular times for these
gatherings and to observe these feasts at the proper season. This lunar system, similar to that long used in
173
Mesopotamia, was easy enough to follow by observing the moon. Even the needed periodical correction
could be determined in a simple fashion. Upon leaving Egypt, the Israelites had not accumulated a body
of astronomical knowledge on which to base a dating system, and God did not give Moses elaborate
technical instructions for regulating the calendar. He indicated the “month of ears” as the first month
(Abib, or Nisan), and from it the simple directions for the spring festivals provided a rule for an accurate
calendar.
The clue to the correction of the lunar year to harmonize with the seasonal year was to be found in the
rules that linked the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread with Abib, the “month of ears”
(Deuteronomy 16:1; Exodus 23:15; 34:18), and with the opening of the harvest. A sheaf of ripe grain was
to be offered as first fruits during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Levites 23:10-14), after which the new
crop of barley could be eaten. Thus, the middle of Abib must not be too early for the beginning of barley
harvest, the earliest grain that ripened in Palestine. And further, it must not be too late for the Feast of
Weeks to come during the wheat harvest, seven weeks later, for the latter feast was called “the firstfruits
of wheat harvest” (Exodus 34:22; cf. Levites 23:15-17; Deuteronomy 16:9, 10). Less specific are the
references to the time of the Feast of Ingathering (or Tabernacles), in the 7th month as coming at the end
of the harvest after the vintage (see Exodus 23:16; Levites 23:34, 39). But the emphasis is unmistakably
placed on the exact timing of the month of Abib in the spring, the month from which all the others are
numbered.
The Barley Harvest the Key - In order to keep Abib in alignment with the barley harvest, it was
occasionally necessary to insert a 13th month, as often as the error had accumulated (during two or three
years) sufficiently to move the lst month too early for the grain to be ripe at the Passover season. A
hypothetical example will illustrate this. The Israelites crossed the Jordan and observed their first
Passover in Canaan in the time of harvest (Joshua 4:19; 5:10-12). The next year the feast would have
shifted about 11 days earlier in relation to ripening time, and by the third year about 22 days earlier. By
the third (certainly by the fourth) year Abib 16 would have moved out of range of the barley harvest, so
that a sheaf of ripe grain could not be offered. Thus in that year the month that would have begun the new
year would be a 13th month instead, later called Veadar (Heb.wa’adar, literally, “and-Adar’’), a second
Adar; then the following new moon would begin Nisan (See note) late enough for ripe barley on the 16th.
There is no proof of the use of the 13th month as early as Joshua’s day, but something like that must have
happened if the Israelites followed the wave-sheaf rule literally.
NOTE: Since the name Veadar has been introduced here for the 13th month, the term Nisan may as well be employed hereafter
for the first month, as well as the other names that were taken over from the Babylonians after the return from captivity. The
Bible more often designates the months by number only, and mentions but four pre-exilic month names. Therefore it is better to
avoid burdening the reader with more than one name for a single month, and to employ from here on the better-known names
that have been in use in Jewry from the Exile down to the present day. It must be kept in mind, however, that these later names
were not actually used in the period covered by this chapter.
Later Jewish tradition tells us that the priests responsible for the decision examined the crop in the 12th
month, and that whenever it appeared that the barley would not be ripe by the 16th of the following month,
they announced that the next month would be called Veadar, and that the month after this second Adar
would be Nisan, the Ist month.
Many authorities hold that throughout the Biblical period the Jewish month was based on direct
observation of the moon, and that the insertion of the second Adar was determined by the Judean barley
174
harvest. Others find evidence in the postexilic period for the method of arbitrary calculation, such as a
regular scheme of 30-day and 29-day months, and the 19-year cycle. Whenever computation was
introduced, it was probably checked and regulated by observation for a long time afterward.
Thus, the years instituted at the Exodus began with Abib, or Nisan, which was evidently to be kept in step
with the barley harvest by the insertion of a 13th month every two or three years.
The Religious Festivals
Passover - The series of religious festivals (see on Levites 23) at the basis of the Jewish calendar began in
the first month with the Passover (see on Exodus 12:1-11; Levites 23:5; Deuteronomy 16:1-7). On the
10th of the month, a lamb was selected for each family or group, and penned up until its slaughter on the
14th. Preceding the 14", all traces of leaven were removed from the houses, preparatory to the Feast of
Unleavened Bread. Then on the afternoon of the 14", literally, “between the two evenings” (Deuteronomy
16:6), the Passover lambs were slain. With the establishment of the Temple, all sacrifices, including the
Passover lamb, were required to be offered there (Deuteronomy 16:5, 6). Every male Jew over 12 years of
age was required to attend, and many women and children came voluntarily. Thousands of pilgrims
gathered at Jerusalem annually for the Passover and the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread that
followed. (The term “Passover” was often used of the whole period.)
Feast of Unleavened Bread - The 15th of the 1st month was the first of the 7 days of unleavened bread
(Exodus 23:15; 34:18; Levites 23:6-14; Deuteronomy 16:3-8), sometimes called the first day of the
Passover (Ezekiel 45:21). It was a festival sabbath, on which no work was to be done (Levites 23:6, 7; for
the term “sabbath,” cf. verses 24, 32). This was not a weekly Sabbath, falling on the 7th day of the week;
rather, it fell on a fixed day of the month, the 15th of Nisan, and consequently on a different day of the
week each year. It was the first of seven ceremonial sabbaths connected with the annual round of festivals,
which were distinctly specified to be “beside the sabbaths of the Lord” (Levites 23:38). These rest days
were part of the ceremonial law; hence, unlike the 7th-day memorial of creation, were “a shadow of
things to come” (Colossians 2:17), types to be fulfilled in Christ.
On “the morrow after the sabbath”—the festival sabbath after the Passover—that is, the 16th of Nisan,
came the ceremony of the wave sheaf, the first fruits of the barley crop. Until this ceremony was
performed, it was unlawful to eat of the new grain. The Feast of Unleavened Bread ended on the 21st with
another festival sabbath (Levites 23:8).
Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks - Seven weeks from the day of the wave sheaf, early in the 3rd month
(later called Sivan), came the Feast of Weeks, celebrating the wheat harvest by the presentation of loaves
in the Temple (see Levites 23:15-21; Deuteronomy 16:9-12). This was later called Pentecost, because it
came 50 days (inclusive) after the offering of the wave sheaf (Levites 23:16). This was another
ceremonial sabbath, and a feast that required the attendance of every male Hebrew (Deuteronomy 16:16).
It is generally reckoned, as occurring on the 6th day of the 3rd month (Sivan), for that was the 50" day
(inclusive) from Nisan 16 whenever the first 2 months had 30 and 29 days respectively, as was probably
most often the case, and always the case after the number of days in each month became fixed. See also
Exodus 23:16; Levites 23:16.
175
Blowing of Trumpets: the New Year (Modern Rosh Hashana) - Six months after the Passover the
series of autumn festivals began with the Blowing of Trumpets on the 1“ of the 7th month (Tishri). The
day, later called Rosh Hashana, the “beginning of the year,” was a festival sabbath (Levites 23:24, 25;
Numbers 29:1). It celebrated the beginning of the civil year. This New Year’s Day was marked not only
by the blowing of the trumpets but also by special sacrifices, almost double in number compared with the
regular new-moon sacrifices (Numbers 29:1-6; cf. chapter 28:11-15; see also on Exodus 23:16; Numbers
29:1).
Yet the months always continued to be numbered from Nisan, in accordance with the command of God at
the Exodus, for the alignment of the year with the seasons depended on the Nisan new moon as located in
relation to the barley harvest. But the civil and agricultural year, and the sabbatical and jubilee years as
well, began by the older reckoning, with Tishri, the 7th month.
If it seems strange that the year should be in any way considered as beginning with the 7th month, it
should be remembered that in modern times we have the custom of beginning a fiscal year in some other
month than January—often with July, our 7th month, and we date such a year as opening, for example, on
“7(month)/1/1954.” So the Jews to this day celebrate their New Year’s Day on Tishri 1, at the beginning
of the 7th month.
Day of Atonement - The 10th day of the 7th month, the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), was and still
is the most solemn day of the year. It was not only a ceremonial sabbath but also a strict fast day (Levites
23:27-32). According to the Babylonian Talmud, (see note) Tishri 1 (New Year’s Day) symbolizes the
judgment:
NOTE: The Talmud is a collection of Jewish traditions compiled between the 2nd and Sth centuries A.D. It consists of two parts:
(1) the Mishnah, a codification of Jewish oral law, divided by subject into tractates, completed about the end of the 2nd century,
and (2) the Gemara, a comment, exposition, and debate on the various sections of the Mishnah. Work on the Talmud was carried
on at both Jerusalem and Babylon. The Jerusalem Talmud was completed in the 4th century, and the Babylonian Talmud, the
more complete of the two, about a century later.
“Mishnah. At four seasons [Divine] judgment is passed on the world: at Passover in respect of produce; at
Pentecost in respect of fruit; at New Year all creatures pass before him [God] like children of Maron. ...
“Gemara. ... It has been taught: ‘All are judged on New Year and their doom is sealed on the Day of
Atonement. ...’
“R. Kruspedai said in the name of R. Johanan: Three books are opened [in heaven] on New Year, one for
the thoroughly wicked, one for the thoroughly righteous, and one for the intermediate. The thoroughly
righteous are forthwith inscribed definitively in the book of life; the thoroughly wicked are forthwith
inscribed definitively in the book of death; the doom of the intermediate is suspended from New Year till
the Day of Atonement; if they deserve well, they are inscribed in the book of life; if they do not deserve
well, they are inscribed in the book of death” (The Babylonian Talmud, Soncion English translation,
tractate Rosh Hashanah, 16a, pp. 57, 58; brackets in the original.)
The Jews still regard the first ten days of the year, ending with the Day of Atonement, as somewhat a
continuation of the New Year observance, an extra period of grace in which the sins of the preceding year
can still be forgiven, a sort of extension of the deadline for closing one’s account with heaven. Even in
our time, the Day of Atonement is considered the day of judgment, since it offers the final opportunity for
176
repentance. In the ancient ceremony of the 10th day, the sanctuary was cleansed of all the sins of the
preceding year, which were thus symbolically removed forever from the congregation (Levites 16), and
on these days the last opportunity was given for repentance. Anyone who was not right with God on that
day was cut off forever (see also Exodus 30:10; Levites 16; 23:27, 29).
On the Day of Atonement the trumpets blew to usher in the 50th year, or the jubilee (Levites 25:9, 10),
and presumably the sabbatical years also.
Feast of Ingathering, or Tabernacles - Then came the joyous Feast of Ingathering, or Tabernacles,
celebrating the completion of the agricultural cycle with the vintage and olive harvest. During this festival,
the people lived in “tabernacles,” or booths, of green branches in commemoration if their earlier
wanderings as nomadic tent dwellers (Levites 23:34-43, Deuteronomy 16:13-15). This feast began with a
ceremonial sabbath on the 15th of Tishri, and lasted 7 days; it was followed by another such sabbath, a
“holy convocation,” on the 22nd (it might be called the octave of Tabernacles). The Feast of Ingathering
was the third of the annual feasts at which all the males of Israel were required to gather at Jerusalem (see
Exodus 23:16, 17; Exodus 34:22, 23).
The tabulation gives for each month the time of its beginning, the dates of the feasts, and the principal
seasonal events. For example, the first month, Abib (postexilic Nisan), begins at the new moon of March
or April; on the Ist, 10th, 14th, etc., of that lunar month, respectively, occur the new moon, the selection
of the lamb, the Passover, etc. and that month marks, approximately, the season of the latter rains, the
barley harvest, etc.
HEBREW MONTHS, FESTIVALS, AND SEASONS
1. Abib (Nisan)* March or April 1 New Moon Latter rains (Joel
Exodus 23:15, 2:23)
Nehemiah 2:1
10 Passover lamb
selected. Exodus
12:3
14 PASSOVER
killed “in the
evening”; eaten
“that night,”
beginning of 15th.
Exodus 12:6-8
177
15+
UNLEAVENED
BREAD begins.
Leviticus 23:6, 7
16 Wave sheaf | Barley _ harvest;
offered. Leviticus | new crop may be
23:10-14 eaten
21 Last day of | Dry seasons
Unleavened begins
Bread. Leviticus
23:8
2 Zif [lyyar] 1 April or May 1 New Moon
Kings 6:1
14 Passover for those | Wheat ripe in
unclean in Ist | lowlands
month. Numbers
9:10, 11
3. (Sivan) (Esther | May or June 1 New Moon Early figs
8:9)
6 PENTECOST, or | Hot weather
Feast of Weeks.
Waves loaves | Wheat harvest,
offered, 50th day | general
from Nisan 16.
Levites 23:15-21
4. [Tammuz] June or July 1 New Moon Wheat harvest in
mountains
First grapes
5. [Ab] July or Aug 1 New Moon Olives in lowlands
6. (Elul) Aug or Sept 1 New Moon Dates, figs
(Nehemiah 6:15)
Vintage
7. Ethanim Sept or Oct 1 BLOWING OF
[Tishri] 1 Kings
8:2
TRUMPETS,
Rosh Hashana, or
New Year. Levites
178
23:24, 25
10 DAY OF
ATONEMENT,
or Yom Kippur.
Levites 23:27-32;
Levites 16
15-21 FEAST OF | End of harvest
INGATHERING
or Tabernacles.
Levites 23:34-43
22 Holy convocation. | Former or early
Levites 23:36, 39, | rains
Numbers 29:12,
35 Plowing begins
8. Bul [Marhesh- | Oct or Nov 1 New Moon Barley and wheat
van or Hesvan] 1 sown
Kings 6:38
9. (Chisleu or Nov or Dec 1 New Moon Winter rains
Kislev)
(Nehemiah 1:1)
10. (Tebeth) Dec or Jan 1 New Moon Lowlands green
(Esther 2:16)
11. (Shebat) Jan or Feb 1 New Moon
(Zechariah 1:7)
12. (Adar) (Esther | Feb or March 1 New Moon Orange ripe in
3:7) lowlands
Purim) Esther | Barley ripe at
9:21-28 Jericho
[13. Second Adar | March [14,15 Purim in 7 out of
7 times in 19
years]
19 years]
+ Annual ceremonial sabbaths (cf. Colossians 2:16, 17) in italics.
* The first day of Abib always came in our March or April, and coincided with the new moon. Similarly,
the month of Zif began in April or May. The other months of the Hebrew calendar follow the same
pattern.
Year Reckonings
Spring and Autumn Beginnings of the Year - The Canaanite calendar begin in the autumn, as did the
Jewish civil year; therefore we may assume either that the patriarchs used it while in Canaan, before
Jacob and his family went to Egypt, or that the Israelites adopted it from their neighbors after the Exodus.
The first alternative seems more likely, since Moses himself refers to an autumn reckoning in the book of
Exodus, as will be seen. The Hebrews combined the numbering of the months from the spring, as
instituted at the Exodus, with the year beginning in the fall, and thus had a double reckoning, the “sacred”
year beginning with the first month and the civil year beginning with the 7th month.
Josephus says that the ancient reckoning was from the fall, but “Moses, however, appointed Nisan, that is
to say Xanthicus [the corresponding Macedonian month name], as the first month for the festivals,
because it was in this month that he brought the Hebrews out of Egypt; he also reckoned this month as the
selling and buying and other ordinary affairs he preserved the ancient order” (Antiquities 1 3. 3. Loeb ed.).
“The End of the Year” in the Autumn - Even in the book of Exodus, which designates the spring
month of Abib as the first month of the (“‘sacred’’) year, there are evidences for the beginning of the older
and more familiar year in the autumn. These are references to its “end” in that season. The difference,
however, is not great, since any year begins at the same point at which the preceding one ends. The Feast
of Ingathering, or Tabernacles, in the 7th month (Tishri) is said to come “at the year’s end” (Exodus
34:22). Again it is referred to as “the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast
gathered in thy labours out of the field” (Exodus 23:16). (See NOTE) Since it celebrated the bounties of
the agricultural year that had just closed, it was identified as coming near the end of the year, although it
actually began 15 days after the end, in the early days of the civil year that began on Tishri 1.
20 66
NOTE: The two words for “end” in these verses are tequpha, meaning a “circle,” “rotation,” “completion,” and se’th, meaning
a “going forth.” The second is more exact, for the 7th month of the religious year is the “going forth” of the new civil year. In
contrast to the “going forth” of the year in the autumn, the spring is called the “return” (teshubah, from shub, “to turn back”) of
the year (1 Kings 20:22, 26). If the beginning of the year is thought of as its going forth on the circuit of the months, then the
turning point, at which it begins to return to its starting point, is of course halfway round the circuit, six months later, in the
spring. That this turning point is meant to indicate the spring is shown by another example of the word teshubah (2 Samuel 11:1).
Here the phrase “after the year was expired” is a less literal translation of the Hebrew “at the return of the year,” and is defined
as “the time when kings go forth to battle.” It is well known that military campaigns in the ancient Near East were started almost
exclusively in the spring and carried on in summer, in the dry season, when transportation difficulties were at a minimum. We
find ancient records of the annual campaigns of the rulers of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia. Thus both the “going forth”
(autumn) and the “return” (spring) of the year are consistent in referring to the fall as the starting point.
Agricultural Year - In Palestine and neighboring lands, the agricultural year has always begun in the
autumn. After the spring grass has been parched and the soil baked by the long, rainless summer, the
autumn rains moisten the soil for planting. This is the early rain, beginning perhaps in October and
increasing in November. The wet season lasts through the winter ending with the “latter rain” of spring,
which matures the grain (see Deuteronomy 11:14; Jeremiah 5:24; Hosea 6:3; Joel 2:23). The barley
harvest in Palestine begins in the middle or end of April, and that of wheat comes in the next month,
180
followed by summer fruits, then grapes and olives in the late summer and fall. Note that from April/May
to October there is dry weather for the successive harvests, as is shown by the following tabulation from
Ellsworth Huntington, Palestine and its Transformation (London: Constable and Company, Ltd., 1911),
page 34.
The minute fractions of an inch listed between May and October show that the scant showers thus
represented by these averages come so infrequently that these months may be considered actually dry.
Average Rainfall at Jerusalem, in Inches
January 6.41 May 0.25 September 0.03
February 5.05 June 0.008 October 0.37
March 4.18 July 0.00 November 2.38
April 1.60 August 0.004 December 5.53
Annual total 25.8
The only actual calendar document that comes from the pre-exilic period of Israel is a stone plaque from
the century in which Solomon lived. It was found in Gezer, a city that the king of Egypt took from the
Canaanites and presented to his daughter, Solomon’s wife. Written on this bit of limestone is a summary
of an agricultural calendar, beginning in the fall. This “Gezer calendar” does not give month names, but
lists the main activities of the farmer’s year month by month.
Civil Year Reckoned From Tishri - Since the whole seasonal cycle of nature was regarded as beginning
anew in the autumn with the return of the life giving rains, the basic idea of the new year seems to have
centered in the fall. This made it inevitable that the civil year was thought of as beginning with Tishri,
even though the months were always numbered from Nisan. The significance of Nisan stems from the
fact that the whole alignment of the calendar year with the seasons was determined by the placing of the
first month at the time of the barley harvest. It was logical to number as first, the month that followed the
inserted 13th month, for in that way the sequence of numbers would never be interrupted. But the
emphasis given the Ist of Tishri as the principal beginning of the year is evidenced by the blowing of
trumpets, by the special sacrifices, surpassing those of Nisan 1, and by the connection of that day with the
day of judgment.
Regnal Years of Kings Reckoned From the Fall - In the time of the Hebrew kings the customary
method of designating the years for dating purposes was to number them in series through each king’s
reign. The formula for a date line was: “on the ofthe — =monthofthe __—yearofKing __.” There
is evidence that these regnal years were reckoned from the autumn, presumably Tishri 1, in the united
Hebrew kingdom (in the reign of Solomon), and afterward in the southern kingdom of Judah, in the time
of Josiah; on the other hand, the spring year appears to have been employed in the northern kingdom of
Israel. The usage of Israel is not indicated directly in the Bible narrative, but it seems to be a reasonable
181
deduction from the synchronism between the successive reigns of the two kingdoms as recorded in the
books of Kings.
Immediately after the captivity, there is rather inconclusive evidence for a spring reckoning of regnal
years after the Babylonian fashion, but in the time of the re-establishment of the Jewish commonwealth
and the revival of a national spirit under Ezra and Nehemiah, we find direct evidence of the autumn
beginning of the regnal year. The regnal years used in dating were reckoned as they had been under the
kingdom of Judah, but in the name of the Persian kings, whose subjects the Jews now were.
Sabbatical and Jubilee Years - One of the distinctive features of the Hebrew laws was the provision for
letting the land rest, that is, lie fallow, every 7th year. Just as the 7th day was the weekly Sabbath for man,
the 7th year, at the end of a “week” of years, was a sabbath of rest to the land, when there was to be no
sowing or reaping (Levites 25:2-7, 20-22). The 7th year was also the “year of release,” for the remission
of debts (Deuteronomy 15:1-15). Then, after 7 “weeks” of years, the 50th year was the jubilee, when not
only were all Israelite slaves to be released, but all lands sold during the period (with certain exceptions)
were to revert to the original owners of their heirs (Levites 25:8-17, 23-34, 47-55). The purpose of this
was to keep the family inheritances intact, so that the rich could never buy up the land and leave a
landless class. Authorities differ as to whether the 50th year was added to the and leave a landless class.
Authorities differ as to whether the 50th year was added to the 50th year was added to the 49, or whether
it was, by inclusive count, also the Ist year of the next cycle.
The 50th year was specifically mentioned as beginning in the autumn. The 7th year, though not so
specified, was obviously similar, not only because it was in the same series as the 50th, but because a year
in which there was no sowing or reaping must necessarily coincide with the agricultural year. The
trumpets were blown to announce the jubilee on the Day of Atonement, the 10th of the 7th month
(Levites 25:9). Since there is no logical connection between the jubilee year and the Day of Atonement
ritual, it is probable that the later rabbis were right in saying that these years coincided with the civil
calendar year, beginning on the 1" of Tishri. The provisions of the jubilee, involving the restoration of
property and slaves, went into operation at the end of the 10th of Tishri instead of the 1“, because the first
10 days of the year were given over to New Year observances. That is, the jubilee began when the regular
business of the civil year opened, on the day that began with the evening at the close of the Day of
Atonement, the 10th of Tishri.
Varying Lengths of the Lunar Years - It is to be noted that in all these various methods of reckoning
years the basic unit of measure was evidently the lunar-calendar year of 12 months, corrected periodically
to the solar or seasonal year by the 13th month. The common year of 12 months consisted of 354 days,
but the adjustment to the moon sometimes required a 355-day year; and the periodic correction to the
solar year required the addition of another month, and the lengthening of certain years to 383 or 384 days.
This correction, if consistently applied as indicated by the barley harvest, never allowed the year to shift
more than a month from its seasonal alignment. For this reason the number of Jewish calendar years over
a long period, as has been pointed out always equaled the number of seasonal or solar years.
The 360-Day Year Not Literal but Symbolic - It should be explained, for it is subject to
misunderstanding, that the Bible gives no evidence whatever that the 360-day prophetic year of twelve
30-day months has anything to do with the Hebrew calendar year. There are a few ancient traditions that
the year earlier contained 360 days. It is not clear whether these are a mere reflection of the Egyptian
182
solar year, disregarding the 5 extra days at the end, or whether they refer to a genuine 360-day year,
which would have remained perennially out of step with both the moon and the seasons. But there are no
solid facts on which to base such a method of reckoning, and certainly nothing to connect it with the
Hebrews, who began the month with the crescent moon.
The mention of a 150—day period during the Flood, which seems to be equated with 5 months, does not
necessarily mean that the antediluvian calendar known to Noah had uniform months of 30 days each. The
period has been interpreted also as indicating an unusual lunar year or a 365-day solar year. Whatever it
was, it has no bearing on the lunar calendar used long afterward by the Hebrews. It is impossible to
harmonize a 360-day year of 30-day months with months measured by the moon. In the very nature of the
case a prophetic month or year, where the year-day principle is involved, must contain a fixed number of
symbolic days if the length of the period is to be certainly known. Such a prophetic period cannot be
based on a lunar calendar, whose months and years are variable. A reckoning by theoretical months of 30
days each would be understandable, and quite logical, for the idea that a month ought to have 30 days was
implied in the later Jewish expressions used of the two types of months; a 30-day month was a “full”
month, and a 29-day month was “hollow,” or deficient. It is possible, though there is no evidence, that the
Hebrews used a theoretical 30-day month for business purposes, as did the Babylonians. Even today, we
compute interest by a month of 30 days, although everyone knows that the months are not uniformly 30
days in length.
The lengths of the prophetic month and year are not directly given in the Bible, but can be derived from
several prophetic periods that are obviously equivalent. Since in these prophecies 3 1/2 “times” are 1260
days (Revelation 12:6, 14), and 42 months are 1260 days (Revelation 11:2, 3), they must be equal. Since
42 months are 3 1/2 years, then 3 1/2 times must be 3 1/2 years. Further, since 3 1/2 years and 42 months
are each equivalent to 1260 days, one year of this type is obviously 360 days, and one month 30 days (for
the prophetic interpretation of the 360-day year, see on Daniel 7:25). A century and a half ago many
writers on the prophecies thought that the 360-day prophetic year was the Jewish calendar year, but they
did not understand the nature of the lunar calendar used by the Hebrews. Such outmoded authorities
should not be quoted; the prophetic month and year can be based on the Bible itself.
New Calendar Problems After the Exile
The Jews and the Babylonian Calendar - When the Jews returned to Palestine after the Babylonian
exile, they brought with them the Babylonian month names in modified form. For example, Abib became
Nisan, from Nisanu, the first month of the Babylonian year. Some authorities think that until after the
Exile the Hebrews did not insert a second Adar—a 13th month—to correct the calendar. But the Passover
had to be synchronized with the barley harvest; therefore the Jews, from earliest times, must have had a
13th month or its equivalent. It is clear that the Israelites were not faithful in observing the Levitical law,
but there is no reason to suppose that they never observed the Passover throughout the centuries.
Some think that the returning Hebrew exiles adopted the Babylonian calendar outright, including their 19-
year cycle, and their exact system of inserting extra months. There is documentary evidence that the Jews
after the captivity used the equivalent of the 19-year cycle, that is, the insertion of 7 extra months in 19
years, but there is no proof that they adopted the Babylonian custom of inserting a second Elul (the 6th
183
month) at times instead of a second Adar. Jewish authorities have always held that only the second Adar
was used, and other authorities agree that in this they differed from the Babylonians. The reason for this
was probably the fact that doubling the 6th month, Elul, instead of the 12th, Adar, would introduce an
irregular interval between the spring and fall festivals, and thus cause confusion in attending the autumn
feasts.
The Bible gives no direct evidence on the question, but the command to keep the Passover in the Ist
month, the “month of ears,” and to observe three feasts in the 7th month, strongly implies that the autumn
feasts were intended to come 6 months after the month of ears, and therefore that there was no irregularity
in the interval from Nisan through Tishri.
In fact, a second Elul would have no significance in the Hebrew calendar, for the necessity for inserting
the 13th month arose only from the requirement of keeping Nisan in line with the barley harvest. This
could best be accomplished by adding a second Adar, just preceding Nisan. Placing the extra month 6
months earlier—if indeed the need for it could be predicted that far ahead—would have been of no
advantage, and would have involved the disadvantage of interrupting the normal sequence of the festival
months.
The Nineteen-Year Cycle - The adoption of a 19-year cycle would have been very helpful in fixing in
advance the time of the Passover. As long as the insertion of the 13th month could not be announced until
the barley crop was examined in Adar, the month of the Passover could not always be known far enough
ahead to avoid inconvenience to those who had to make their plans to attend. But a 19-year cycle would
have enabled them to space 7 extra months in every 19 years in a regular sequence of 2-year and 3-year
intervals, and to keep the Passover date within the known season of ripening barley. The calendar would
be regulated systematically and the 13-month years, recurring at predetermined intervals in each cycle,
would always be known in advance.
This 19-year cycle can be explained as an expression of the relationship between solar and lunar years;
namely, that 235 lunar months almost exactly (within an hour or two) equal 19 solar years. But 19 lunar
years of 12 months, each would total not 235 but 228 months; therefore if an extra lunar month is inserted
7 times in every 19 years, the 19th lunar and solar years will end together. If, for example, the spring
equinox fell on Nisan 1 in any given year, it would come on Nisan 1 again 19 years later.
The Babylonians developed such a cycle experimentally. By the early 4th century B.C., they inserted the
extra month always in the same years of each 19-year cycle: a second Addaru (Adar) in what we call the
3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, and 19th years, and a second Ululu (Elul) in the 17th. (It is known which years
had 13 months but not which years the Babylonians called the “year 1” of each cycle; hence these
numerals are arbitrary.) The Jews, however, seem never to have employed a second Elul, but only the
second Adar. The question of when the Jews adopted the 19-year cycle is not settled. Since that cycle was
known in Babylonia along before the Christian Era, and many Jews lived there from the 6th century B.C.,
it would seem hardly probable that the Jewish rabbis who were in charge of the calendar would remain
ignorant of the principles of calendrical calculation until the fixed calendar was introduced, long after
Christ’s day. It is probable that such principles were known long before the traditional methods were
abandoned. Up to the time of the destruction of the Temple, the barley harvest was the major factor, but
after that, and especially after the Jews were driven away from Jerusalem, it was less relevant to the
problem that the convenience of uniform calculation in widely scattered areas.
184
Although the Bible nowhere hints of any 19-year cycle, the barley harvest rule would automatically result
in an average of 7 extra months in every 19 years. Thus the laws of the festivals, without specifying any
calendrical rules as such, served to regulate the Palestinian calendar naturally and simply.
Calculation of the Months Versus Observation - The question of the 13th month arose only once in
two or three years, but the question of the beginning of the month was ever present. Especially after the
captivity, when the majority of Jews remained in Babylonia, it was a very real problem to keep all the
faithful observing the new moons and festivals together. The mere difference in the dating of documents
was a minor matter, but the prospect of some Jews profaning sacred days while others were observing
them was abhorrent to the pious.
The sanctity of the Temple and the prestige of the priesthood kept the Babylonian Jews looking toward
Palestine for authority in this matter. Thus the postexilic calendar, even as followed by those Jews who
remained for centuries in Babylonia, was regulated in Jerusalem. The first day of the month—at least after
each 29-day month—was announced by fire signals repeated from mountaintop to mountaintop to the
outlying districts of Palestine, and even on to Babylonia. Eventually, however, false beacons, lighted a
day early by the Samaritans, misled the distant Jews into beginning a new month after 29 days when the
outgoing month should have had 30 days. Consequently, the fire signals were replaced by messages sent
by runners.
In Egypt, where fire signals could not be used, and afterward in all countries outside Palestine, the Jews
came to observe new moons and festivals on two successive days, in order to be sure of having the right
day. Even a month that followed a 29-day month could not be assumed to have 30 days; this doubt as to
the first of the new month led to the observance of both the 30th and the day following. This custom was
well known in Rome. Horace referred in his Satires (i. 9. 67-70) to the Jewish “tricesima sabbata, ” or
“30th-day sabbath”:
“Horace: ‘Certainly I do not know why you wish to speak secretly with me, you were saying.’
“Fuscus: ‘I remember well, but in a better time let me speak: today is tricesima
Sabbata: do you wish to offend the circumcised Jews?’”
After the lengths of the months became a matter of calculation, they could be known in advance without
depending on direct observation. Unfortunately, we do not know when the change was made from
observation to a regular sequence of 30-day and 29-day months. We have considerable direct evidence of
postexilic calendar practice from dated Jewish documents found in Egypt, but the evidence from these
sources has given rise to differences of opinion on the question of calculation versus observation.
It is likely that the calendar officials employed methods of calculation while still retaining the practice of
summoning witnesses to report the appearance of the crescent every month, or at least for the month of
Nisan. Such traditional procedures would naturally be retained long after they had become unnecessary.
During the period when the month depended on the observation of the crescent, or on confirmation by
witnesses, there was uncertainty in distant places as to the correct day of the month, for, on account of
certain variable factors, the actual appearance of the crescent could not be predicted. The failure to see a
crescent on the evening after the 29th of the month might mean that the month should have 30 days, but it
might also mean that atmospheric conditions unfavorable to visibility might delay its being seen in some
185
places later than in Jerusalem. And the difference in longitude between Palestine and Babylonia could
sometimes mean that the crescent became visible in Jerusalem after it had already set for Babylonia (see
next section). These elements of uncertainty operated even after the astronomical new moon, called “the
moon in conjunction,” could be computed.
The Moon and the Observed Lunar Month - The interval between the astronomical new moon and the
visible new moon (or crescent), with which the ancient Semites began each month of their observed lunar
calendar, is variable. As the earth moves in one year round the sun, the moon circles the earth 12 times
and a fraction. During each revolution of the moon (which marks a lunar month), that body passes
between the earth and the sun, and also passes the point on the opposite side of the earth from the sun.
When we see it opposite the sun, with its face completely illuminated by sunlight, we say that the moon is
“full.” When it passes between us and the sun, we do not see it at all because the side toward us is
unlighted. When it emerges from between the earth and the sun and becomes visible to us in crescent
form—that is, we see the edge of its lighted portion—we say that it is “new.”
In order to understand this better, let us visualize an imaginary line connecting the center of the earth and
the center of the sun. As the moon circles our globe, its path lies in a variable plane tilted at an angle in
relation to that of the earth; therefore it is sometimes above and sometimes below the plane of the earth’s
orbit as each month it passes between us and the sun and crosses the earth-sun line. If, as happens
occasionally, the moon intersects this line, so that its shadow falls directly on our globe, observers within
that shadow see its black disk darkening part or all of the sun in a solar eclipse. Most of the time, when it
crosses above or below the imaginary line, it does not obscure the sun, but remains invisible, and
therefore the exact time of the crossing (which astronomers call conjunction) cannot be observed. The
time of conjunction, (the astronomical new moon) is given in almanacs and on some calendars, it is
symbolized by a solid black disk.
But it is not often that the crescent becomes visible in the evening sky on the day marked “New Moon” in
the almanac. When the moon passes conjunction during the day, it is too nearly in line with the sun to be
seen that evening after sunset. Only after an interval—averaging about a day and a half—does it move far
enough past the sun to bring its lighted side toward the earth sufficiently to appear as a crescent. When the
crescent becomes visible, it may be seen on one part of the earth just after sunset, but observers on other
parts of the globe farther east, for whom the moon will have already set, cannot see the crescent until the
next evening. That is why the lunar month, starting with the observation of the crescent, could sometimes
begin a day earlier in Egypt or Jerusalem, for example, than it would in Babylon.
The interval between conjunction and the visible crescent varies not only with the hour of conjunction and
the locality, but also with the speed and angle of the moon’s course, which are variable. When it is slower,
the moon takes longer—perhaps two or three days—to move far enough from the sun to be seen. Further,
atmospheric conditions affect visibility, and in certain seasons, the crescent may be entirely obscured by
clouds on the first evening, and so a 29-day lunar month might be given 30 days and the new month
delayed one day.
The Postexilic Month Names - After the return from Exile, the Babylonian month names were adopted,
in slightly changed spelling, as has been mentioned. As for the beginning of the year, both fall and spring
reckoning seem to be used in the postexilic books of the Bible. It is to be kept in mind that regardless of
whether the year is reckoned from the autumn or from the spring, Nisan is always numbered as the Ist
186
month, Tishri the 7th, and Adar the 12th. Thus, the civil year begins with the 7 month and ends with the
6". This alignment of the months, and the approximate equivalents in our calendar, is made clear by the
following tabulation:
THE JEWISH CALENDAR
(With postexilic month names derived from Babylonia)
Order of the months Order of the months
1. Nisan March/April
2. Tyyar* April/May
3. Sivan May/June
4. Tammuz* June/July
5. Ab* July/Aug
6. Elul Aug/Sept
7. Tishri* Sept/Oct 7. Tishri*
8. Marheshvan* Oct/Nov 8. Marheshvan*
9. Kislev (Chisleu) Nov/Dec 9. Kislev (Chisleu)
10. Tebeth Dec/Jan 10. Tebeth
11. Shebat Jan/Feb 11. Shebat
12. Adart Feb/March 12. Adart
March/April 1. Nisan
April/May 2. Tyyar*
May/June 3. Sivan
June/July 4. Tammuz*
July/Aug 5. Ab*
187
Aug/Sept 6. Elul
* Month names not mentioned in the Bible.
+ In leap years a second Adar follows Adar, preceding Nisan.
The Postexilic Year in the Bible - Ezekiel does not make it clear whether the years of his era, beginning
with the exile of Jehoiachin, were reckoned from Nisan or from Tishri, or were counted by anniversaries
from the date of the king’s captivity. But if Ezekiel, as is generally held, reckoned the year from the
spring, he may have done so because he lived in Babylonia and used the official Babylonian calendar,
which began the year with Nisanu (Nisan). Thus, his usage would have no bearing on Jewish calendar
practice. Haggai, and presumably his contemporary and colleague, Zechariah (although the latter is
inconclusive), are generally believed to have used the spring year, for if the events of Haggai 1:1 and 2:1,
10 are related in chronological order, the 7” and 9" months followed the 6th month in the 2nd year of
Darius, as could not have occurred if the 7" month had begun a new year. The book of Esther, which
identifies Nisan as the 1“ month, Sivan as the a and Adar as the 12" sheds no light on how the Jews
reckoned the beginning of the year, since the dates in this book are given in connection with official acts
of leaders in the Persian government. These events would presumably be dated in the Babylonian
calendar, which the Persian rulers adopted from the time that Cyrus conquered Babylonia.
In the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra-Nehemiah was originally one book), there is proof that the
returned Jews counted the years of the king from the fall, presumably by the civil year beginning with
Tishri. Nehemiah mentions Chisleu (Kislev, the 9th month) as preceding Nisan (the 1“ month) in the 20"
year of Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 1:1; 2:1). Evidently, he was thinking in terms of the old regnal year of
Judah and reckoning from the 7” month, Tishri, rather than the Persian new year in Nisan. Although the
events mentioned in these two months occurred in the Persian king’s palace, the book was not written
until after Nehemiah had gone to Jerusalem and engaged in the rebuilding of the Jewish community there.
In such a situation—under the restoration of a Jewish administration at the ancient capital of Judah—it
was natural that there should be a resurgence of patriotism, and a return to the old calendar and regnal
year of Judah. Further, a document from a Jewish colony in Egypt, written in the same century with Ezra
and Nehemiah, shows that these Jews in Egypt also used a Jewish calendar year beginning in the fall.
Archeology and the Postexilic Calendar
Jewish Documents From Egypt - This last-mentioned document is one of over 100, written in Aramaic
on papyrus, that have been found been found on the island of Elephantine in the Nile River, in the ruins of
a border garrison town settled by Jewish mercenaries and their families. These Aramaic papyri from
Elephantine (sometimes inaccurately referred to as the Assuan Papyri) form one of the most interesting
collections of ancient documents. They are wills, deeds, contracts, letters, and other documents, coming
from the 5th century B.C., the century of Ezra and Nehemiah. In these papers we find not only references
to the public and private affairs of the local Jews but also mention of such intriguing items as the Jews in
Palestine, the Passover, an official mentioned in the Bible, and a Jewish temple on Elephantine built by
the colonists. These papyri, some of which were found still rolled up and sealed, show us the exact form
188
of the language used by the Jews after the Exile—Aramaic, a language closely akin to Hebrew, used
internationally in Babylonia and throughout the Persian Empire. They also show us the very spelling and
handwriting, the ink and “paper,” of the sort used in the time of the returning exiles, and the legal
phraseology of a royal decree of a kind similar to those quoted from the Persian archives in the book of
Ezra—the Aramaic passages that were regarded by critics as proving the unhistorical character of the
book.
Indeed, these ancient papyri from Elephantine stirred up much difference of opinion, and were even
regarded as forgeries in some quarters because of the unusual form of the date lines many of them bore—
double dates in two calendars with sometimes apparently conflicting regnal-year numbers. But these
double dates proved to be excellent evidence of their genuineness, for they synchronize the Egyptian and
Jewish calendar dates in a way that enables us to calculate the very days on which they were written.
These dates corroborate the chronology of the reigns of that period as reckoned in Ptolemy’s Canon.
The Jewish colonists of Elephantine had been in Egypt before Cyrus’ successor, Cambyses, conquered the
country and made it part of the Persian Empire. Whether they first arrived as exiles after the destruction
of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, as did the group who took the prophet Jeremiah with them, we do not
know; but the references to religion in these papers reveal the same conditions that Jeremiah deplored—
the mingling of paganism with the worship of Jehovah. In the Jewish temple at Elephantine Jehovah was
worshiped along with pagan deities.
Not only are the dates and contents of these Jewish documents interesting; their date lines furnish
information about the Jewish calendar of the period.
Local Calendars Retained Under Persian Rule - When Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon, he did
not incorporate Babylonia into Persia under a provincial government; rather he annexed the kingdom to
his earlier domain and took the title of king of Babylon in addition to his title of king of Media and Persia.
In Babylonia the Persians adopted the language and culture of the country and took over the Babylonian
calendar. In fact the Babylonian priests, the custodians of the accumulated astronomical knowledge of
centuries, and of the calendar system, flourished under Persian protection and made further advance in the
regulation of the calendar.
Similarly, when Cyrus’ son Cambyses added Egypt to the Persian Empire, he continued the machinery of
Egyptian government, but had himself crowned king of Egypt. Then he ruled the country through a
governor who was nominally the viceroy of the Persian “Pharaoh,” retaining the local legal system and
the Egyptian calendar. In later times the Romans were to follow the similar policy of allowing the use of
various older local calendars in the eastern provinces, although eventually throughout the empire these
calendars were adjusted to the Julian year of 365 1/4 days, that is, the local month names were retained
but the lengths were adjusted to 30 and 31 days, etc., like the Roman months.
Under Persian rule in Egypt it seems that legal papers were drawn up in accordance with the local laws
and dated by the native calendar; these papyrus documents from Elephantine, with a few exceptions, bore
date lines carrying the Egyptian month and day, and the regnal year of the Persian king reckoned by the
Egyptian solar calendar (beginning with the month Thoth). This was a sensible procedure, for two
ordinary citizens signing a contract in Egypt could not be expected to know when their payments should
fall due or the contract expire if the date were given in terms of a foreign calendar.
189
But these particular documents were drawn up by Jews living in a Jewish community, using their own
calendar, differing from that of Egypt. Therefore many of these papyri bore double dates, not only in the
official Egyptian calendar, but also in the Jewish calendar. For example, one was dated “on the 18" of
Elul, that is, the 28th day of Pachons, year 15 of King Xerxes.” This means that the document was signed
on a day that was the 18th of the Jewish lunar month of Elul and was also the 28" of the Egyptian month
Pachons in the 15th year of the reign of the Persian king Xerxes. Another reads, “on the 24" of Shebat,
year 13, that is the 9" day of Athyr, year 14 of Darius [II] the king.” This gives two year numbers. The
date was in year 13 in the Jewish calendar, but in the Egyptian calendar another year had already begun;
hence this same date was in the Jewish year 13 and the Egyptian year 14 of Darius II.
These double dates show that the various peoples of the Persian Empire used their own calendars.
Although under Persian rule, the Egyptians retained their solar calendar (indeed, they always retained it,
and bequeathed the 365-day year to Rome and, through Rome, to us). Further, the Jews, as a minority in
Egypt, were free to use their own calendar, although it was different from that of Egypt. The legal dating
for these documents seems to have been the Egyptian form, for if only one date was given, it was
generally in the Egyptian formula, with the king’s year reckoned by the Egyptian calendar. Many of them,
however, bore double dates, both Egyptian and Jewish.
The Problem of Reconstructing an Ancient Calendar - Since the Egyptian calendar for this period is
known, the Julian equivalent of the Egyptian date can be located. Even if the year is unknown it can be
derived from the synchronism of the lunar with the solar date, for the lunar date, moving at least 10 days
in one year, can agree with the Egyptian solar date only once in about 25 years. Thus these double-dated
papyri can be dated in the Julian B.C. scale. By the use of these established dates as check points, a
tabulation of the Jewish calendar as used in Egypt can be reconstructed for a large part of the 5th century
with a greater degree of accuracy than can be done for that of Babylon, although the Babylonian calendar
can be outlined, approximately, for a much longer period. For the Egyptian and Julian calendars.
Since the dates of many of these papyri can be determined within the range of a day, in each case the
dates of that whole month are known with the same precision. There is a possibility of a discrepancy of
one day, sometimes two, in the exact dating of the other months of that year if the beginning of the month
still depended on the observation of the moon. The time of the astronomical new moon (conjunction) for
each of these months can be computed almost exactly from modern lunar tables but the interval between
the invisible conjunction and the visible crescent is variable. If we wish to find the dates of ancient Jewish
months, we can compute from astronomical tables the approximate times of conjunction for any year in
antiquity, and can estimate the first of the new month by taking into account the hour of conjunction by
Jerusalem local time, and the speed and angle of the moon. But we can never be certain of complete
accuracy in reconstructing that ancient calendar year as it actually operated, for we cannot be sure that we
know all the variable factors in the observation of the crescent, nor do we know whether the year was
reckoned by calculation or observation during the period covered by the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine.
R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein have reconstructed an outline of Babylonian chronology, beginning
in 626 B.C. In this monograph they have published Babylonian calendar tables covering a number of
centuries, based on certain fixed dates and on certain 13th months attested from ancient records, and
elsewhere on computed dates. These tables are very useful as an approximation. The user must allow for
an uncertainty in some cases as to where the 13th months were inserted, and allow for an error of plus or
190
minus one day in some of the months. And this is reasonable accuracy for reconstructing an ancient lunar
calendar.
Since so many variable elements are involved in locating the first day of the month, the location of the
remaining days in each month is similarly uncertain; consequently, the full moon (which can be fixed
approximately by astronomical computation) does not always come on the same day of the lunar month.
In the period of these papyri it varied from the 13th to the 15th.
Even at points where an ancient record fixes beyond question a lunar date or series of dates, the calendar
cannot be reconstructed beyond that particular year without the occasional possibility of being a month
off if the location of the 13th month is unknown. Not until the early 4th century B.C. did the Babylonians
insert their 7 extra months always in the same years of each 19-year cycle, and we do not know that the
Jews had a similarly regular cycle.
However, when there are ancient source documents, we can be fairly certain. If we have Babylonian
tablets indicating that a particular year had 13 months, the calendar months of that Babylonian year can be
identified with reasonable certainty; and if we have a synchronism identifying a day of a given lunar
month with a day of a known calendar, as in the Jewish double-dated papyri from Egypt, even the days of
that month can be known. That is why, for a considerable period in the 5th century B.C., the Jewish
calendar as used by the writers of these papyri can be reconstructed with approximate accuracy. Such a
calendar has been reconstructed by Lynn H. Wood and Siegfried H. Horn, giving the first day of each
Jewish month from 472 to 400 B.C.
Jewish Calendar in Egypt - A study of this tabulation and of the 14 double-dated papyri on which it is
based makes clear the following 12 characteristics of the postexilic Jewish calendar:
1. These Jews dated by their own Jewish calendar, differing slightly from the Babylonian system.
2. Unlike the Persians, but like the Jewish repatriates at Jerusalem (Nehemiah 1:1; 2:1), they
reckoned the years of the king’s reign from the autumn rather than from the spring.
3. Unlike the Egyptians, but after the old custom of Judah, they regarded the interval from the
accession of the king until the next New Year’s Day as the “accession year”, after which the “first
year” of the reign began.
4. They had adopted, in Aramaic spelling, the Babylonian month names, all 12 of which appear in
these papyri.
5. Although there is no mention of a second Adar, the intervals between the dates of certain papyri
indicate the use of a 13th month at various times.
6. If they did not know a fixed 19-year cycle as such, they evidently used its equivalent in that the
intervals between these double-dated papyri imply an average of seven 13-month years in every
19 years.
7. These Jewish 13th months probably fell most often in the same years as in the Babylonian
calendar. In the aforementioned Horn-Wood tabulation they are the same months as those in
Parker and Dubberstein’s tables (Babylonian Chronology, 1956 ed.) with a very few exceptions,
such as when the Babylonians inserted a second Elul instead of a second Adar in the 17th year of
their cycle (as they came to do regularly—and, in later times, invariably—after the Babylonian
cycle became fixed).
191
8. These Jews seem not to have used the second Elul. Of three papyri dated in 17th years, where we
should expect it, two do not prove the practice, and one proves definitely that they did not reckon
a second Elul in that year.
9. The evidence is not at present fully conclusive that the calendar was based on computation rather
than observation of the moon, for the relation of the calendar dates to the moon have been
interpreted in either way because of variable factors. But there are indications that it was
computed to some degree.
10. Although there is no conclusive proof of computation of the lengths of the months at this period
(No. 9), it is interesting to note that a possible fixed sequence of 30-day and 29-day months from
Nisan to Tishri, which would have allowed the same number of days between Passover and
Tabernacles, is compatible with the dates of these papyri. A reconstructed calendar based on this
sequence is reasonably consistent with the actual motions of the moon.
11. The 1st of Nisan seems to have been kept, so far as the years represented by these papyri are
concerned, from moving earlier than the vernal equinox. (See NOTE) That is, if the month
following Adar began before the equinox, it was made the 2nd Adar, and Nisan was postponed
until the next month. (This contradicts the later opinion of the rabbis that in the postexilic period
the Passover came at the first full moon after the vernal equinox.)
NOTE: Unless the divergence mentioned in note 5 is to be accepted.
12. There is no indication of the practice of adjusting the length of the year to prevent certain feasts
from falling on certain days of the week, as was done in the later, fixed calendar published long
after the time of Christ.
The Jewish colonists in Egypt who wrote these papyri were in correspondence with their returned
brethren in Palestine, but we do not know whether they were in close enough contact to enable them to
keep the insertion of the 13th month in exact synchronism with the reckoning followed at Jerusalem.
NOTE: Certain evidence, not conclusive, had led some scholars to believe that these colonists failed at one period to make the
adjustment properly; that by inserting too few 13th months they allowed their calendar to diverge from the normal 19-year cycle,
with the year beginning too early, and then, through closer contact with revived Judaism in Palestine, corrected the error by
inserting the extra month more often. This could easily have happened, but the evidence is based on double dates that are
inconclusive or disputed. If it did occur, it would be interesting to know the cause—possibly the fact that the barley harvest in
southern Egypt, coming earlier than in Palestine, could not be depended on as a guide.
It is remarkable that these double-dated papyri, which could not have survived at Jerusalem, but which
have been preserved in the drier climate of a distant Jewish outpost in Egypt, have now come forth to give
us a glimpse of the postexilic calendar in operation. These documents show the Jews (1) holding to their
own way of reckoning, which was independent of that of their Egyptian neighbors; (2) differing from the
Babylonian system of their Persian overlords, which many scholars have assumed that they slavishly
adopted. Nor do these Jews seem to know anything of certain rules attributed to them by the much later
traditions of the Mishnah and Gemara in the early centuries of the Christian Era.
Different From Later Rabbinical Calendar
The Jewish calendar and sectarian variants in the intertestamental and New Testament periods lie beyond
the range of this chapter. But in the Mishnah, and then the Gemara, written in the early Christian centuries,
we find a few bits of information concerning the Jewish calendar at the end of the 2nd century A.D. and
192
later, most of it in the form of traditions of earlier practices. It is in the Mishnah that we find accounts of
the examination of witnesses before the Sanhedrin as to the appearance of the crescent, and the
announcement of the new month to outlying regions by means of fire signals. The questions asked
regarding the exact form of the crescent would seem to indicate that the first barely visible crescent was
probably not counted; some say the “horned” phase, indicating that a longer interval might have been
reckoned from conjunction to crescent. Other questions seem to indicate that the examiners were less
interested in seeking information than in eliciting confirmation of knowledge that they already had by
calculation, and that the formal procedure of visibly noting the new moon was carried on from precedent
long after the principles to calculate its appearance were known.
In the Talmudic arguments, some doubtless dating from as late as the 5th century A.D., later concepts are
sometimes applied erroneously to earlier times; therefore these conflicting traditional authorities must be
used with caution. For example, the belief that the 16th of Nisan could move back almost to the spring
equinox is opposed to the facts of the barley harvest and to the evidence of the source documents from the
postexilic period. Traditional references to the full moon of the Passover may indicate efforts to stabilize
the month in relation to the full moon, at least in Nisan, but the 5th-century B.C. papyri give no hint of
this. It is quite likely that in the period of the second Temple, the months were at least partly regulated by
something more than simple observation from month to month, but we cannot be sure from the available
sources how early and to what extent computation was employed.
Eventually, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and the dispersion and persecution of the
Jews by later emperors, the practice of regulating the calendar from Jerusalem was necessarily abandoned,
and an arbitrary scheme was substituted, so that Jews in all lands could reckon the dates of the sacred
feasts uniformly. Thenceforth the Jews in Babylonia or anywhere else could regulate the calendar by
artificial means, regardless of the barley harvest in Judea or the appearance of the moon at Jerusalem.
It was once thought that the calendar as revised, supposedly in the 4th century, had come down
unchanged to the present day, but most authorities now think that the reform was a gradual growth, taking
several centuries, incorporating earlier traditions and later developments. Some of the medieval disputes
between the rabbinical advocates of the fixed calendar and the Karaites, who attempted to retain
observation and the barley harvest rule, indicate that the question of the calendar was still a live issue. The
present sequence of the seven 13-month years in each 19-year cycle, and the numbering of years
consecutively from a supposed era of creation, (See NOTE) were not adopted by the Jews until the
Middle Ages.
NOTE: The 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th years of each cycle counted from a theoretical beginning in 3761 B.C. This
means that 1975/76 is counted as the 17th year of a cycle, with a second Adar in the spring of 1976.
193
CHAPTER SEVEN
Like all other ancient time records, those of the Bible present problems. In the first place, the records are
often incomplete. In the second, we cannot always be sure that we know the method by which the
ancients reckoned; for example, whether they reckoned the year as beginning in the spring or the autumn,
or whether inclusive reckoning was used in such a phrase as “three years.” Again, it is not always possible
to synchronize Biblical with secular chronology.
For these and other reasons that might be given, it is not possible to prepare a complete and exact scheme
of Bible chronology. However, it is possible to construct a tentative chronological outline, particularly for
the reigns of the Hebrew kings, that can be of great help to the Bible student.
The purpose of this chapter is to set forth reasons for the choice of the dates given in that outline. The
following information surveys the source data, discusses the principles and methods used by scholars in
constructing ancient chronology, and explains the application of these principles to chronological
problems of this period of Bible history. It should be added that learned men have differed in their
conclusions on Bible chronology, and that this chapter does not set forth in full any chronological scheme
yet published.
The Conquest of Canaan
The Territory East of the Jordan - When the hosts of Israel turned finally from Kadesh toward the
Promised Land they came to Mt. Hor, where Aaron died and where they mourned for him 30 days
(Numbers 20:22-29). The date of his death was the Ist day of the 5th month, in the 40th year of the
Exodus (Numbers 33:38). Thus, presumably, they did not leave Mt. Hor until the beginning of the 6th
month. After several stops, they reached the territory of Sihon, king of the Amorites, east of the Jordan
and the Dead Sea. Being refused passage, they conquered Sihon’s land from the Arnon to the Jabbok.
They also took the territory north of the Jabbok, that is, Gilead and Bashan (Numbers 21:21-35), and then
returned to camp east of the Jordan opposite Jericho. This must have been a short campaign, because after
this occurred the incident of Balaam, the idolatry and punishment of the Israelites, and the numbering of
the people, all before the Ist day of the 11th month of the 40th year, when Moses began his final
discourses, recounting to Israel their past experiences and admonishing them as to their future course
(Deuteronomy 1:3-5). Then Moses died, probably about the beginning of the 12th month, for after
mourning for him 30 days (Deuteronomy 34:5-8) the Israelites proceeded on their way, in the first days of
the first month, and crossed the Jordan on the 10th of the month (Joshua 4:19). This entry into Canaan on
the 10th, and the observance of the Passover on the 14th, were obviously in the 41st year of the Exodus.
Thus the period of the wanderings was one of 40 full years, extending from the midnight deliverance from
Egypt on the 15th of the 1st month in the 1st year of the period, to the first Passover in the land of Canaan,
194
following the crossing of the Jordan in the 41“ year. But the conquest of Amorite territory before crossing
the river occurred in the second half of the 40th year.
This last date is important because it establishes, in relation to the Exodus, the date of the entry into
Canaan, and pegs down a landmark from which a period is reckoned in the time of the judges—
Jephthah’s 300 years from the occupation of Sihon’s city of Heshbon and its surrounding territory.
The Conquest of Canaan Proper - In the 41st year, then, according to this Exodus reckoning, Joshua led
the armies of Israel in several campaigns to subdue the land west of the river. His forces included a
contingent from the tribes that were to settle in the Transjordan territory recently won from the Amorites.
The land was not completely conquered during this war, for the Israelites could not drive out the
inhabitants of many of the strongly fortified cities, and many of those conquered in the first campaigns
were not held permanently. Yet the country was subdued sufficiently to halt opposition to the settlement
of the Israelites. Even after “Joshua took the whole land,” and “the land rested from war’ (Joshua 11:23),
he told the Israelites that “there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed” (chapter 13:1). Ending the
armed opposition and allotting the land to the tribes was not the same thing as actually possessing the
whole land; this was not accomplished fully until the time of David. But the first stage was completed in
the matter of a few years.
The Assemblies at Gilgal and Shiloh - After the division of most of the land had been completed, the
Israelites assembled at Gilgal, where the Passover had first been observed and the tabernacle had been set
up. On this occasion the aged Caleb asked for the region of Hebron as his allotment of territory (Joshua
14:6-15). He stated that he was 40 years old when he went with the spies from Kadesh-barnea (in the
second year of the Exodus), and that now he was 85 years old. This occasion was therefore in the 46th or
47th year from the Exodus. Since the first campaigns east of the Jordan began in the 40th year, this would
make the wars of Canaan last six or seven years. Further distribution of the land by lot (chapters 15-17)
was followed by the setting up of the tabernacle at Shiloh (chapter 18:1). If this took place immediately
after the assembly at Gilgal mentioned in chapter 14:6, it was soon after the seven-year war.
This chapter uses a dating of the Hebrew kings that puts the spring of Solomon’s year 4 in 966 B.C., in
the 480th year from the Exodus. Then the Exodus, in the Ist year of that period, 479 years earlier, was in
1445 B.C., and thus the conquest of Heshbon and the other Amorite territory late in 1406, the crossing of
the Jordan in the spring of 1405, and the gathering at Gilgal after the war in Canaan, in 1400 or 1399.
The uncertainty in this last date stems from the question of whether Caleb, in speaking of his age as 85,
counted the years from the spring or the fall; he did not specifically refer to the years of the Exodus, but
was reckoning his own age. (See note below) The Exodus reckoning, as an era, was used by Moses, but it
does not seem to have survived as a means of dating, except in the case of Solomon’s 4th year (1 Kings
6:1). Although the months were always numbered from Abib (later called Nisan), in the spring, the years
were generally reckoned from the fall. The gathering at Gilgal, presumably at a regular feast, could have
been at the Feast of Tabernacles in 1400 B.C., the Passover in 1399, or the Feast of Tabernacles in 1399.
NOTE: If Caleb was calculating the 45 years since he was 40 in terms of a chronological period based on Moses’ Exodus era, he
probably was thinking of 45 years after the second year in which the spies went out. This would have been, by the practice so
common in ancient times, 45 years inclusive, thus ending in the 46th, not the 47th, year of the period (or 1400 B.C., if we reckon
the Exodus in 1445). But if he did this, he would have been 85 years old in the 46th year from the Exodus only if he counted his
own age by the fall-to-fall year, and was speaking in the latter part of the 46th year, after an autumn new year had begun his own
195
85th year. But if, as seems more likely, Caleb was merely making a quick, oral computation based on his age, and was reckoning
the 45 years only as years of his life, without regard to an era, he probably merely subtracted 40, his age when he spied out the
land, from his present age of 85, and arrived at 45 years as the interval. Of course, this would be 45 years elapsed, not 45
inclusive. If he reckoned his age by years beginning in the spring, coinciding with the years of the Exodus, his 85th year would
have coincided with the 47th year of the Exodus reckoning (or 1399/98 B.C.); if by fall-to-fall years, it would include half of the
46th and half of the 47th; therefore this occasion could have come in either 1400 or 1399.
Following this meeting at Gilgal, the tabernacle was moved to Shiloh (Joshua 18:1), where the final
allotment of territory was made to the remaining tribes. There is no indication of the interval between the
meeting at Gilgal and the one at Shiloh. The tabernacle was moved not earlier than 1400, and presumably
not much later than 1399.
Joshua’s Death and the Ensuing Apostasy - The next chronological item, an uncertain one, is the death
of Joshua at the age of 110 (Joshua 24:29). It was “many days” after the end of the war that Joshua called
the people together, and told them, “Behold, I have divided unto you ... an inheritance for your tribes”
(Joshua 23:4), and bade them farewell with, “Behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth” (verse
14). If this was soon after the division of the land at Gilgal and Shiloh, then Joshua was nearing 110 years
of age at the time Caleb was 85, was about 65 when he acted as one of the 12 spies, and was a centenarian
when he led the Israelites into Canaan. If, however, he was about Caleb’s age, his death took place 25
years after the end of the war. Thus the interval between the entry into Canaan and the first judge has a
wide margin of uncertainty. In either case, we must allow a considerable period after Joshua’s death
before the first judges, for it was after the apostasy of the generation that succeeded Joshua that the
oppressions began, and the judges were raised up to deliver the Israelites. Apostasy was appallingly rapid
(see on Judges 18:30 for the conditions in the lifetime of a possible grandson of Moses), but it must have
taken at least several decades for the younger contemporaries of Joshua to die out. It was after “all that
generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew
not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel,” that “the children of Israel did evil” and
forsook the God of their fathers, so that the Lord delivered them into the hands of their enemies, and then
raised up judges who repeatedly delivered them and sought to bring them back to the worship of God (see
chapter 2:10-16).
The Period of the Judges
The chronology of the period of the judges presents problems if we attempt to place all the events in
consecutive order. There is no need to doubt the figures, but the problem of harmonizing them with the
events described in the end of the book of Joshua and the beginning of 1 Samuel has given rise to varying
opinions and solutions. The account is so abbreviated that we do not have all the facts concerning the
relationship between the various judges and the intervening periods of oppression. The fact that the story
of one judge is told without a hint that there was any other judge in another part of the land at the same
time does not rule out the possibility of contemporary judges.
The Data of the Book of Judges - The writer of Judges did not set out to give all the details of the
history of his period; his purpose was to show how the Israelites repeatedly forsook God and fell a prey to
their enemies, were in turn rescued and given another opportunity. Whether these events happened
successively or contemporaneously in different sections of the country had no bearing on the lesson of the
196
book, and so the writer did not supply all the details of the timing, although he preserved carefully the
number of years of each judge and of the periods of oppression. They are given as follows:
Oppression under Cushan-rishathaim 8 . > 3:8
Deliverance by Othniel; the land rests 40 a 7 3:11
Oppression by Eglon of Moab 18 . 7 3:14
Deliverance by Ehud; the land rests 80 \ ie 3:30
Oppression by Jabin and the Canaanites 20 1 ee 4:3
Deliverance by Deborah; the land rests 40 7 e 5:31
Oppression by the Midianites 7 = . 6:1
Deliverance by Gideon; the land rests 40 = 8:28
Abimelech reigns over Israel 3 = “ 9:22
Tola judges Israel 23 % a 10:2
Jair judges Israel 22 e 10:3
Oppression by the Ammonites (and Philistines) 18 7 oy 10:7,8
Deliverance by Jephthah 6 7 “ 12:7
Ibzan judges Israel 7 * = 12:9
Elon judges Israel 10 - Ss 12:11
Abdon judges Israel 8 “ _ 12:14
Oppression by the Philistines 40 : Ss 13:1
Samson judges Israel 20 7 15:20
410 plus x
The x years represent the unknown period, probably several decades, during which the Israelites “served
the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua” (Judges 2:7), and then
apostatized. Even leaving out the x years preceding the first oppression, we have a total of 319 years to
the end of the 18 years of Ammonite invasion, which Jephthah spoke of as 300 years. This 319 plus x
may well be 350 or more; and the total of 410 plus x for the whole sum of the years of the judges and the
197
intervening periods of oppression is probably more than 450. Evidently not all these periods were
successive.
Some Periods Overlap - The record clearly indicates an overlapping of some of these judgeships and
servitudes. The 20 years of Samson fell within the 40 years of Philistine oppression, for “he judged Israel
in the days of the Philistines twenty years” (Judges 15:20). Further, in connection with the statement that
the Philistines oppressed Israel 40 years (chapter 13:1), it was foretold that Samson would only “begin to
deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines” (verse 5). If, then, Samson’s 20 years are part of the 40,
the total is reduced from 410 plus x to 390 plus x.
But the 40 years of the Philistines oppression seem to have been partly contemporaneous with the 18
years of servitude to the Ammonites, for it is said that “the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and
he sold them into the hands of the Philistines, and into the hands of the children of Ammon” (chapter
10:7). Then follows the description of the Ammonite oppression and the deliverance by Jephthah
(chapters 10:8 to 12:7), and after this an enumeration of the three judges who succeeded him, evidently
unimportant characters of whom little more is recorded than the duration of their judgeships, totaling 25
years (chapter 12:8-15); then chapter 13 returns to the 40-year Philistine oppression to recount the life of
Samson, and how he “began” to deliver Israel from the Philistines. Thus the Scripture indicates that the
Philistine oppression and the Ammonite oppression were contemporaneous. The Ammonites, inhabiting
the Transjordan plateau toward the edge of the desert, swept over the eastern tribes of Israel (for Gad,
Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh lived east of the Jordan), and continued their pillaging for 18
years. Finally, they invaded the territory of Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim west of the Jordan (chapter
10:8, 9). The Israelites, thus harassed from the east, had no opportunity to employ their united strength to
defend the west, where the Philistines on the southern portion of the seacoast raided Judah and Dan and
threatened the western tribes.
Other Periods Probably Contemporaneous - It is obvious that if some of these periods in the book of
Judges were contemporaneous, as the record seems to indicate, it is likely that some of the others also
were simultaneous, occurring in different parts of the land, even though we cannot tell which periods
overlap and for how long. This seems all the more likely when we notice that these judges were widely
scattered geographically: Othniel was from Judah, Deborah from Ephraim, Barak from Naphtali, Ehud
from Benjamin, Gideon from Manasseh, Tola from Issachar, Jair and Jephthah from Gilead, east of the
Jordan, Ibzan and Elon from Zebulum, Abdon from Ephraim, and Samson from Dan. During this period
the tribes were living in widely scattered territories largely in mountainous terrain separated by areas held
by Canaanites, whom they had never succeeded in driving completely from the land, and whose fortresses
held the main routes of communication in the lowlands. It is doubtful that any of these judges ruled over
any large portion of the Israelites. The record reveals that even in a time of crisis, when a deliverer was
fighting to repel the oppressors, not all the tribes rallied to drive out the invaders. The reason may be that
not all the tribes were oppressed at any one time, and that consequently the deliverers were more or less
local.
Jephthah’s 300 Years - Further, if Jephthah’s 300-year estimate of the time of the Hebrew occupation of
the towns of the Amorites is anywhere near exact, there was necessarily an overlapping of the periods up
to his time, for the total, excluding the time of Joshua and the surviving elders is 319 years.
198
It is not necessary to assume that Jephthah’s 300-year statement was exact, since he was at the time
contending with the Ammonite invaders, and in the heat of controversy he doubtless did not stop to look
up any records or consult a tribal “rememberer’” to get the exact figure, but used a round number. This
number was likely rounded off to the hundred above the actual total rather than to less than the exact
interval. But it is also possible that the elapsed time was exactly 300 years when Jephthah spoke. If it was,
we have the exact date, in relation to the Exodus, since the towns of Heshbon were taken from Sihon,
king of the Amorites, in the 40th year of the Exodus (1406/05 B.C., according to the dating of the Exodus
utilized for this chapter). Then 300 years, inclusive, from the acquisition of that territory would be
1107/06 B.C.
The Later Judges - If the 40 years of Philistine oppression ended with the battle of Ebenezer (1 Samuel
7:5-14), the most likely event to terminate this period, then the judgeships following Jephthah must have
overlapped also, probably more extensively than those before him. Samson would be a contemporary of
Jephthah; and Eli, who died after 40 years as judge (see chapter 4:4, 11, 18), 20 years before the battle of
Ebenezer (see chapters 6:1; 7:1, 2, 11-14), must have been older than either Jephthah or Samson. If the
ark was in Shiloh some 300 years, reckoned from a point 6 or 7 years later than the beginning of
Jephthah’s 300 years, and was taken from Shiloh to the battle in which it was captured by the Philistines,
then the death of Eli following this battle took place about the time of Jephthah. The ark, returned by the
Philistines, was placed at Kirjath-jearim, where it had been 20 years at the time the Israelites won their
decisive victory over the Philistines at Ebenezer.
It was at that time that Samuel was made judge (chapter 7:6, 15-17). We are not told how long Samuel’s
judgeship lasted, but we do know that it closed the whole period of the judges. Some take it as ending
with the coronation of Saul, when the monarchy replaced the theocratic government of the judges, but
some extend it to Samuel’s death, since he continued to function as a judge (chapter 7:15) although the
judge was no longer the chief magistrate after the monarchy was set up. Nothing is recorded of Samuel’s
age, except that he was born when Eli was no longer young; that he received his first message from God
while he was still a boy; that he was old enough to be known as a prophet before Eli’s death (chapter 3),
though he was apparently young enough to be passed by as judge until 20 years later (chapter 7). A
fragmentary manuscript from a Dead Sea cave, containing parts of 1 Samuel | and 2, gives Eli’s age as 90,
not at his death (as in LXX), but at some time after Samuel was placed in his care (see on chapter 2:22). If
Samuel was about 3 when brought to Eli (see 1 Samuel 1:24), he was at least 11 when Eli died at 98. This
fragment may preserve an original figure, later lost, but we cannot build on this assumption. Samuel was
judge long enough to be an old man who had already relinquished at least part of his work to his sons
before the Israelites demanded a king (chapter 8:1-5). If he lived through the greater part of Saul’s reign,
as the record indicates, he must have been very old when he died. Samuel is the link between the period
of the judges and that of the monarchy. Thus it would seem that the first part of the book of 1 Samuel
covers a period contemporary with the last part of the book of Judges, presumably chapters 10-16.
The Judges and the 480 Years - With such overlaps as are here indicated, it is entirely possible that the
40 years of wandering in the wilderness, the conquest of Canaan, the period of the elders that outlived
Joshua, the subsequent apostasy, the various judgeships, some of them contemporaneous, including the
judgeship of Samuel, and the reigns of Saul and David could have occurred within the space of 480 years,
as indicated in 1 Kings 6:1. There is no way of computing exactly the length of the period of the judges,
or the specific overlaps, but a tentative outline of the period that fits this chronology has been included in
199
the section on history. This outline is intended only as an approximation of what may have happened, but
it demonstrates that the figures in the book of Judges can be reasonably interpreted by means of overlaps
that agree with the historical situation and with the interpretation of the 480 years as the exact length of
the period from the Exodus to and including the 4th year of Solomon.
Those who follow the longer chronology of the judges, and make all the periods consecutive throughout,
interpret the 480 years as the sum of the actual judgeships, excluding the periods of oppression or
usurpation, and take the total period as being more than 500 years. This results in an earlier date for the
Exodus. One system of dating formerly employed by some “fundamentalist” writers, with the successive
periods of the book of Judges, arrives at a total of 594 years from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon
by interpreting the 480 years as the total number of the “years of the Theocracy” during which Israel was
really under God-appointed government, not counting the six periods of servitude and the three years of
the usurpation of Abimelech. By overlapping Eli with the Philistine servitude and Samuel with Eli, it
arrives at the x years of Joshua’s successors as 13 years by subtraction. This scheme, which requires
assumptions concerning which there is no evidence, to say the least, has never gained standing in the
world of Biblical scholarship.
The marginal dates that have appeared in many editions of the KJV since 1701, derived from the
chronology of Archbishop Ussher, first published in 1650, place the Exodus in 1491 B.C.; the first judge,
Othniel, in 1406; and the beginning of Saul’s reign in 1095. This dating is arrived at by placing the 4th
year of Solomon, as the 480th from the Exodus, in 1012 B.C. This B.C. date is based on interregna
between the kings, also on Ussher’s conjecture that the completion of the Temple (1004) was 1,000 years
before the birth of Christ.
Many scholars regard the 480 years as merely meaning 12 generations, estimated at 40 years each. This
would be equivalent to throwing out the number 480 entirely, for an estimate of 12 generations cannot be
a basis for a specific time statement of an exact “480th year.”
If “in the 480th year” is not meant to refer to a specific year, but to a general approximation, how are we
to know that “in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat,” or “in the seventh year of Artaxerxes,” or “in the
eleventh year of Zedekiah” is anything but an estimate? When the Bible gives exact statements of time,
and on these statements can be built a detailed chronology without alteration, there seems to be no
adequate reason for assuming that they are not based on exact data. It is admitted that Bible writers may
use round numbers at times, especially in the case of the number 40, but such a possibility should not
weigh against actual figures that harmonize with other figures to make exact synchronisms as they stand,
nor is there any reason to doubt that when a writer puts an event in a certain specific year he means that
very year.
It is true that many writers who do not accept the Bible as accurate history revise the figures wherever
they please, to suit their own theories. Some of them reduce the time of the judges to even shorter periods
by regarding 1 Kings 6:1 as an error; those who place the Exodus in the 12th or 13th century must of
necessity do this. But this is not constructing a chronology based on the Bible data; it is a revision of the
Bible records according to each individual’s theory. Since this commentary is intended to explain the
Bible, not to revise it, any chronology incorporated into it must be based on the Biblical figures; if they
cannot be explained consistently, it must be admitted that we do not have a complete Biblical chronology.
Therefore the 480 years are to be included in the picture.
200
This chapter employs the simpler interpretation of the so-called 480 years, inclusive (the phrase is not
“A480 years,” but “the 480th year”), as literal and exact, ending with the 4th year of Solomon as the 480th
year. The overlapping of the judges, which this reckoning requires, is accepted as a reasonable
interpretation of the data, but no attempt is made to be dogmatic on the details of the judgeships. The
outline in the history section shows what may have happened, but no one knows what actually did happen,
nor does that fact diminish the value of the narrative for its readers.
The United Hebrew Monarchy
Reference has been made to the indefiniteness of our information on the relation of the beginning of the
monarchy to the time of Samuel and the earlier judges. The Old Testament contains no clear statement as
to the length of Saul’s reign, but any difference of opinion on this period would affect only the date of its
beginning, for its end is fixed in relation to the reigns of David and the later line of kings.
The Reign of Saul Variously Interpreted - The only information given in the Bible as to the length of
Saul’s rule (unless 1 Samuel 13:1 is so regarded) is the remark of the apostle Paul, made in an impromptu
sermon at Antioch: “And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a
man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years” (Acts 13:21).
Paul had just referred to two other time periods: (1) God’s deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, when
“about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness,” and (2) another period of
“about the space of four hundred and fifty years” (verses 18, 20; italics supplied).
Some have concluded that, since Paul was thinking in round numbers, as indicated by the qualifying word
“about” with these two numerals, he merely omitted to repeat the modifier with the third numeral; that he
would naturally use round numbers in an oral summary, for he was not writing a history, or even
consulting records for these figures. Even his phrase, “about the time of forty years” in the wilderness is
an example of 40 used as a round number, since the duration of the Israelites’ wandering in the wilderness,
after rebelling against God at Kadesh and being turned back, was actually only 38 years.
On the other hand, the fact that the third number, unlike the first two, is not qualified by “about” leads
some to think that it was meant to be an exact number in contrast with the others. If so, what period did
Paul intend it to cover? Some think that it extends to the beginning of David’s rule over both Judah and
Israel, more than 7 years after the death of Saul, and hence that the personal reign of Saul, in distinction
from that of his house, was less than 40 years. The question as to whether Paul meant to indicate that Saul
occupied the throne exactly 40 years cannot be settled, and it does not affect the historical accuracy of the
account.
The Ages of Saul, David, and Jonathan - The only reason for concern with the exact length of Saul’s
reign is that a total of 40 years involves apparent difficulties as to the comparative ages of Saul, David,
and Jonathan, difficulties that would be avoided if 40 were a round number for a considerably shorter
period. If 40 is exact, then David was born a decade after Saul came to the throne, for at the age of 30 he
succeeded Saul (2 Samuel 5:4). Then, if he slew Goliath when he was as young as 18—and he could
hardly have been much younger—this event took place after Saul had reigned nearly 30 years. If the
battle of Michmash, in which Jonathan took a prominent part (1 Samuel 13, 14), occurred in the second
201
year of Saul’s reign (see on 1 Samuel 13:1), as the KJV has been taken to imply (although it does not
actually so state), Jonathan was presumably 18 or 20 years old about a decade before David was born.
This makes the close and brotherly friendship between an 18-year-old David and a 46-year-old Jonathan
seem entirely out of harmony with the narrative. Also, on this basis, Jonathan’s only son, Mephibosheth
(or Merib-baal; 1 Chronicles 8:34; 9:40), who was 5 years old at the time of the battle in which Saul and
his sons were killed (2 Samuel 4:4; cf. 1 Samuel 29:1, 11; 31:1, 2), would have been born when Jonathan
was 53. This would be rather late for Saul’s heir apparent to be providing for the succession of his line.
And if Jonathan was a grown man so soon after his father’s accession, Saul must have been between 75
and 80, at the very least, when he was killed in battle. None of this is impossible, but it would seem to be
so unusual as to lend weight to one of two views: (1) that the figure 40 does not refer to the exact length
of the personal reign of Saul, or (2) that he was quite young at the time of his accession and that the battle
of Michmash must have come considerably later than the second year of his reign. Either of these two
explanations would allow Saul and Jonathan to be much younger, thus eliminating the apparent
difficulties in their ages.
Various Explanations of Saul’s Reign - If Saul’s reign was less than 40 years, the question arises as to
what evidence there may be for its length. Extending the 40 years to cover the time up to the coronation
of David over all twelve tribes would subtract 7 1/2 years at the most. This is possible, but of course
unproved.
In one instance, Josephus attributes to Saul a reign of only 20 years (Antiquities x. 8. 4). In another
instance, he has Saul reign 18 years during Samuel’s lifetime and 22 years after the death of the prophet
(Antiquities vi. 14. 9). This latter statement shows variants in the manuscripts, two of the Latin texts
reading 2 for 22, thus making this statement conform to the other. It has been suggested that the number
22 represents an emendation by a Christian copyist to make it conform to Paul’s statement, but this is of
course merely a conjecture. There seems to be no textual question about the statement from Antiquities x.
8. 4.
Now, if Saul reigned only 20 years, then David, who was 30 when he came to the throne (2 Samuel 5:4),
would have been 10 years old at Saul’s accession. There is general agreement that David was only about
18 when he slew Goliath; he was young enough to be left at home with the sheep instead of being in the
army (1 Samuel 17:13, 14, 28, 33, 42), yet old enough to fight wild beasts (verses 34-37), and is referred
to as a valiant man of war (chapter 16:18). Consequently, there would be only about eight years between
the beginning of Saul’s reign and the battle with Goliath. In that case, Samuel could have died about 18
years after Saul’s accession. Some regard eight years as a rather short period for the events related before
the Goliath incident, and similarly object to only two years between the death of Samuel and that of Saul,
since David spent a year and four months of that time among the Philistines. But the interval after
Samuel’s death could hardly have been much more than two years, unless 1 Samuel 25 and 26 have
omitted many events. The only incidents recorded between Samuel’s death and David’s flight to Philistia
are his journey to Paran, his encounter with Nabal, and his second encounter with Saul. These incidents
would not seem to require more than eight months.
If, as some think, 1 Samuel 13:1 gives the incomplete remnant of a statement of the length of Saul’s reign,
and the original numeral ended in two (“... and two years he reigned”; see on 1 Samuel 13:1), it could
have been 22, although 32 would seem more likely as an equivalent of the round number 40. In view of
202
the aforementioned observations, what is to be done with Paul’s statement assigning 40 years to the reign
of Saul? Either this is a round number or it is not. If it is, the relative ages of David, Saul, and Jonathan
can be made to appear more reasonable, but any attempt to arrive at an exact figure for the reign will be
only speculation. If it is not a round number, the period is 40 years, and the unnatural disparity of ages
must be accepted if we are to construct this chronology on the Bible data.
Later Chronology Not Affected - In either case, any difference of opinion on the duration of Saul’s
reign has no effect on the date of the end of that reign or on the dates of the reigns of David and the later
kings. Regardless of which scheme of chronology is preferred for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the
B.C. dating pivots on synchronisms in the latter part of the period; consequently shortening Saul’s reign
would merely move his accession later, and allow that much more time for the judges.
The Reign of David - There is no question about the length of David’s reign. Here 40 is obviously not a
round number, for it is the sum of 7 and 33, and there is actual mention of an event in the 40th year of
David (1 Chronicles 26:31). The extra six months (2 Samuel 5:4, 5) offer no problem. It could be possible
that David’s entire reign, from the time that he became king in Hebron until he died, was exactly 40 years
and 6 months; it is not necessary, however, to suppose this, since the reigns of ancient kings were
customarily counted by calendar years; and if one died at any time in his 40th calendar year, he was said
to have reigned 40 years, as will be explained later. It is more likely that the six months were his
“beginning of reign,” or “accession year”—the interval between his coming to the throne and the next
New Year’s Day, from which his “year 1” would begin. If the Philistines went up against Saul in the plain
of Jezreel at the usual season when “kings go out to battle” (1 Chronicles 20:1), Saul’s death, followed by
David’s accession in Hebron, would have occurred in the spring, and David’s first full year of reign
would have begun about six months later, at the beginning of the year in the autumn.
Solomon Made King by David - At the end of David’s reign, “when David was old and full of days, he
made Solomon his son king over Israel” (1 Chronicles 23:1). At this time, he appointed officers for the
Temple service and for the affairs of Israel “in all the business of the Lord, and in the service of the king”
(chapter 26:30). This seems to have taken place “in the fortieth year of the reign of David” (verse 31). In
the last chapter of the book the reign is summarized as 7 years in Hebron and 33 in Jerusalem (1
Chronicles 29:27). This would imply that Solomon’s joint reign with his father continued for part of the
40th year, for if it had extended into the 41st, David would have been reckoned as reigning 41 years. This
40th year must have been counted also as Solomon’s “accession year,” or “year of the beginning of the
reign.”
Solomon’s Years From Autumn to Autumn - The reign of Solomon furnishes an important clue to the
reckoning of the regnal years, that is, the years of the king’s reign, as beginning in the autumn, in his day
at least. It is explained in the section on the Hebrew calendar that there were two beginnings of the year:
The religious year began with the 1st of Abib (Nisan), in the spring, and the civil year with the Ist of
Ethanim (Tishri), (See note) in the autumn. Since the months were always numbered from the spring, the
civil fall-to-fall year began with the 7th month, with the numbers running 7—12 followed by 1—6. Thus,
the first month came after the middle of the civil year.
NOTE: Rather than confuse the reader with alternate names, the months will be referred to hereafter by the more familiar (and
still used) postexilic names—Nisan for the Ist month, Tishri the 7th, etc., even though it is recognized that these were not used
until after the period of the kings ended.
203
The Temple was begun in the 2nd month of the 4th year of Solomon, and was completed in the 8th month
of the 11th year (1 Kings 6:1, 37, 38). In view of the well-attested fact that the ancients were in the habit
of reckoning inclusively, it seems surprising that an interval from the 4" to the 11" year should not be
expressed here as 8 years. But since the beginning and ending dates are given, it is to be presumed that the
reckoning was not by complete regnal years, but by anniversary years, that is, years reckoned from the
date of the event that marks the beginning, the 2nd day of the 2nd month. If the 7 years are reckoned
inclusively from the 2nd month of the 4th year of the reign, the completion of the Temple falls in the 11th
year of the reign if the regnal years begin in the fall, but not if they begin in the spring. This has been
understood as evidence that Solomon’s regnal years were reckoned from the autumn, presumably Tishri 1.
Solomon’s Fourth Year Used as Basis for Exodus Date - This date of the beginning of the building of
the Temple on “the second day of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign” (2 Chronicles 3:2) is
important in relation to the time of the Exodus. According to the chronology of the kings employed in this
commentary, the 40th and last year of Solomon’s reign was 931/30 B.C., counted from autumn to autumn;
therefore the 4th year of the reign, 36 years earlier, was 967/66 B.C., also beginning presumably with the
autumn New Year’s Day, the first of Tishri, the 7th month. Since the Hebrews always numbered their
months from the spring, even though the civil year began in the fall, the 2nd month, Zif, came in the
spring of 966 B.C.
But this event in the month of Zif is also dated “in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children
of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt” (1 Kings 6:1). Thus, we have a synchronism between two
dating scales—the regnal years of Solomon and the years of the Exodus era. Since the deliverance from
Egypt took place in the middle of the 1st month in the 1st year of the Exodus reckoning, that departure
can be placed 479 years earlier than the Ist month of the 480th year, that is, in the spring of 1445 B.C.
Thus Solomon’s reign, as dated from the later reigns of the divided kingdom, gives us in turn a date for
the Exodus if we accept the 480th year as an exact figure.
Methods and Principles of Reckoning
Before considering the period of the divided kingdom, which followed the death of Solomon, it may be
well to pause for an explanation of the methods used in reckoning ancient reigns, and of certain terms and
principles that will be used in the later discussion of the reigns of Israel and Judah.
Chronology Built Upon Synchronisms - The chronological data in the books of Kings are given mostly
in two types of time statements aligning the reigns of the two neighboring kingdoms of Judah and Israel,
that is, (1) accession synchronisms, or statements dating the accession of one king in a certain regnal year
of the contemporary ruler in the other nation; and (2) the lengths of the reigns. A typical example is seen
in the record of the accession of Amaziah of Judah during the reign of Jehoash (Joash) of Israel: “In the
second year of Joash ... king of Israel reigned Amaziah ... king of Judah. He was twenty and five years
old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem” (2 Kings 14:1, 2).
We are told later that Amaziah outlived Jehoash 15 years (verse 17); and then comes the next accession
synchronism, the statement of the accession of the next king of Israel, Jeroboam II, during Amaziah’s
reign: “In the fifteenth year of Amaziah ... king of Judah Jeroboam ... king of Israel began to reign in
Samaria, and reigned forty and one years” (verse 23).
204
Similar synchronisms are given for the other kings. Since the accession of each is synchronized with a
regnal year of his contemporary neighbor, and the length of each reign is given, it is possible to construct
an outline of the chronology of the two kingdoms based on these interlocking synchronisms. A graphic
method of constructing such chronologies is to start with two parallel scales of years in diagrammatic
form, and to lay out on them the two series of reigns of Israel and Judah so that (1) the accession of each
king is synchronized with the corresponding year of the contemporary ruler of the other kingdom, and (2)
the recorded length of each reign is allowed for. If the pattern is correct, the end of each reign and the
beginning of the next will come in the prescribed year of the reign of the other kingdom as recorded in the
Bible.
Sometimes the figures in Kings can be interpreted in only one way; then the alignment is easy to
determine. But in other instances more than one interpretation may be made, and various possibilities
must be tried out. To begin with, this is largely a trial-and-error procedure. Where the lengths of the
reigns do not fit the scheme, many have concluded that the text was erroneous. But it must be considered
that there is more than one method of reckoning involved, that Israel and Judah did not necessarily use the
same systems. In order to work intelligently it is necessary first to understand the methods and principles
of reckoning that may have been used by the writer of Kings or in his sources. To illustrate from the time
statements just quoted, relating to Amaziah and his contemporaries, the following questions must be
answered—and they are not so simple as they may seem at first glance.
How did the writer count the 15 years that Amaziah lived after the death of Joash? (See next section.)
If Amaziah reigned 29 years, in what year of his reign did he die?
What is meant by his 15th year?
When does a king’s “first year” begin?
Did the 15th year of Amaziah in Judah exactly coincide with the Israelite year in which Jeroboam II came
to the throne?
The task of finding the answers to such questions is complicated by the fact that Judah and Israel did not
employ identical systems of reckoning. The general principles of ancient reckoning that explain these
questions will be found in the following paragraphs.
Years Counted by Inclusive Reckoning - As already pointed out, the common mode of counting
employed in the Bible seems to have been inclusive reckoning, that is, counting both the first and the last
unit of time in calculating an interval. This method was also used generally by other ancient nations, as is
shown unmistakably by source documents. An Egyptian inscription recording the death of a priestess on
the 4th day of the 12th month relates that her successor arrived on the 15th, “when 12 days had elapsed.”
Today, we would say that when 12 days had elapsed after the 4th, the date would be the 16th. The Greeks
followed the same inclusive method. They called the Olympiad, or the four-year period between the
Olympic Games, a pentaeteris (five-year period), and used other similar numerical terms. The Romans
also, in common usage, reckoned inclusively; they had nundinae (from nonus, ninth), or market days,
every ninth day, inclusive, actually every eight days, as indicated on ancient calendars by the letters, A
through H.
205
Of course, mathematicians and astronomers were aware that the reckoning was mathematically inexact,
but it persisted in common parlance, as it has even down to the present day in the Orient. Modern vestiges
in the West are the phrase “eight days,” meaning a week in some European languages; the Catholic term
“octave” of a festival, meaning the day coming one week after the holy day; the musical intervals, such as
octave, third, fifth, etc.; and even the medical term “tertian fever,” meaning a fever recurring every other
day.
The clearest Biblical demonstration of inclusive counting is in the New Testament (see on Acts 10:30
where a period of 72 hours is reckoned as “four days ago,” not “three’”’), but an Old Testament example is
in 2 Kings 18:9, 10. The siege of Samaria lasted from the fourth to the sixth year of Hezekiah, which is
equated with the seventh to the ninth year of Hoshea, and yet the city is said to have been taken “at the
end of three years.” In modern usage, we would say two years, by straight subtraction. Obviously, the
Bible writer reckoned inclusively (years four, five, and six totaling three years).
A Hebrew boy was circumcised when “eight days old” (Genesis 17:12), that is, “in the eighth day”
(Levites 12:3). Similarly, Luke speaks of circumcision “on the eighth day” or “when eight days were
accomplished” (Luke 1:59; 2:21). Evidently “when eight days were accomplished” (or “‘at the end of eight
days,” RSV) does not mean eight full days from the date of birth, but eight inclusive.
Jeroboam II of Israel succeeded his father Jehoash in the 15th year of Amaziah of Judah (2 Kings 14:23),
and Amaziah “lived after the death of Jehoash ... of Israel fifteen years” (2 Kings 14:17). A modern
reader would mentally add 15 to 15, reaching Amaziah’s 30th year, yet Amaziah reigned only 29 years
(verse 2). Inclusive reckoning is again the most logical explanation, since 15 years, inclusive, from the
15th year is the 29th, in which he evidently died.
There are other examples. When, at the death of Solomon, Rehoboam was petitioned to lighten the tax
burden, he told the people to depart “for three days” (1 Kings 12:5) and then return for his decision “after
three days” (2 Chronicles 10:5). They came “the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me
again the third day” (1 Kings 12:12; cf. 2 Chronicles 10:12). Esther asked the Jews of Shushan to fast,
and by implication, to pray, for her before she went in to the king unbidden, and then she approached the
king “on the third day” (Esther 4:16; 5:1). Obviously, a period of “three days” ended on the third day, not
after the completion of the three days, as we would reckon it.
All this serves to explain the supposed difficulty in the three days between the crucifixion and
resurrection of Jesus. The texts are as follows:
Matthew 26:61; 27:40 27:63 (12:40, & 3 nights) 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64
Mark 14:58 (within) 8:31 9:31; 10:34
Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 21, 46
John 2:19-21
206
29 66
It is obvious from these texts that “in three days,” “after three days,” and even “three days and three
nights” are all equivalent to “on the third day.” One writer (Matthew) uses all three phrases for the same
period. The interval from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is three days, by inclusive reckoning. Since
it is clear that this mode of counting was the common practice in Bible times, and widespread in many
countries, it is useless to try to understand this period as three full 24-hour days, according to the modern
Western habit of counting. To do so violates both historical usage and Biblical statement, and creates a
difficulty that would not exist if the ordinary usage of common speech and of examples in the Bible be
taken into account.
The Length of a King’s Reign - Just as the common mode of expression made Noah 600 years old in his
600th year, or a child 8 days old on his 8th day, and just as a period of 3 days or 3 years ends on the 3rd
day or in the 3rd year, although the 3rd day or year is not yet completed, so a reign of 25 years was one
that ended in the 25th year.
Asa of Judah was recorded as having ruled 41 years, yet he died in his 41st year (1 Kings 15:9, 10; 2
Chronicles 16:13); note also the end of Zedekiah’s 11-year reign in his 11th year (2 Kings 24:18; 2 Kings
25:2-7). This is also demonstrated by the Judah-Israel synchronisms, and was customary in Babylon and
Egypt, as evidenced by documents brought to light by archeologists.
This was somewhat akin to inclusive reckoning, although the total of a reign was not always true
inclusive reckoning. There were two methods of counting regnal years, one of which eliminated the
inclusive numbering, and so kept the total number of years correct, as will be explained next. But the
system of regnal years was not ordinary folk usage; it was a specialized form of calendar reckoning,
primarily chronological in purpose.
Regnal Years Are Calendar Years - When the ancients dated events in a certain year of a king’s reign,
they were using a calendar dating formula. They were not concerned with how long that ruler had been on
the throne when the event occurred, but they used the regnal-year number as the regular designation for
that calendar year. This was the common method of identifying the year, for they had no long-term era
like our B.C.-A.D. dating. Accordingly, the regnal year coincided with the civil year, beginning on New
Year’s Day. The various nations had different calendars, and different New Year’s Days, but the system
of counting reigns by their respective calendar years was followed in Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt, and
evidently by the Hebrews also. It seems to have been taken for granted in the ancient Near East.
Although a king’s regnal years were equated with whole calendar years, the first and last of his kingship
would be incomplete unless he happened to come to the throne on New Year’s Day and die on the
anniversary of his accession. Hence an adjustment had to be made, and there were two methods of
making this adjustment as described in the immediately following paragraphs.
Accession-Year Method of Reckoning Reigns - If King A died during his 35th year, and was succeeded
by King B, all documents written in the first part of the year, up to A’s death, would have been dated in
the such and such day and month of the 35th year of King A, but during the rest of that year they would
be dated in the name of his successor, King B, and the first New Year’s Day in the new reign would usher
in a new regnal year of King B. The difference in the two methods was concerned with the unexpired
portion of the year between the accession and the following New Year’s Day.
207
In Babylonia, for example, this partial year would be called King B’s “year of beginning of reign,” now
known as accession year; and the full calendar year beginning on the next New Year’s Day (Nisan 1) was
numbered the first year of the reign. Thus in a series of reigns, the year 35 of King A would be followed
by the year 1 of King B. This is referred to as the accession-year method of dating, because the interval
from the date of accession to the end of the calendar year is called the accession year, and is not
numbered. This method is also sometimes called postdating, since the beginning of what was called the
first year was postdated, or postponed, until the first day of the next calendar year following the new
king’s coming to the throne.
Non-Accession-Year Method of Reckoning Reigns - By the other method, used at times in Egypt, the
new king began dating documents in his “year 1” as soon as he ascended the throne, and the year
beginning at the next New Year’s Day (Thoth 1 in Egypt) was called year 2. Thus the same year that
began as the 35th of King A would end as year | of King B, and A’s year 35 would be followed by B’s
year 2, not year 1. This causes an overlap of 1 year in reckoning a series of reigns. It adds an extra year
for each reign, for it is the equivalent of inclusive reckoning, numbering both the first and the last year of
every reign, when actually each king’s “first year” is only the unexpired part of the last year of his
predecessor. Since there is no period called accession year before year 1, this is called the non-accession-
year method, or antedating.
Both Systems Used in the Book of Kings - These two methods are well documented from ancient
Egyptian and Babylonian records. The use of regnal-year dating is shown in the Bible by a number of
date formulas. For example, Jerusalem was besieged on the 10th of the 10th month in the 9th year of
Zedekiah’s reign (2 Kings 25:1); and “in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the
nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar” (verse 8), Nebuzaradan came and burned the Temple. There is
no indication as to whether these time statements involve the accession-year or non-accession-year
reckoning. But certain synchronisms in the book of Kings, in equating a year of a king of Judah with a
certain year of a king of Israel, seem to point to the conclusion that both Hebrew kingdoms used both
these systems at different times. At the division, after Solomon’s death, Judah seems to have been using
the accession-year and Israel the non-accession-year method.
In order to survey briefly the differences between these two methods of regnal reckoning, let us return to
the hypothetical King A, who dies in his 35th year, and is succeeded by King B. A diagram will illustrate
the differing effects of the two methods on the numbering of B’s reign, on the dating of events by regnal-
year numbers, and on the totals of B’s and succeeding reigns.
The six paragraphs following the diagram will summarize the results
I. In the accession-year system (upper), after the end of the year in which one king dies and the next
ascends the throne, the first New Year’s Day of the new reign ushers in the year | of the new king.
II. ‘In the non-accession-year system (lower), however, the year of death and accession is followed
by year 2 of the new king, and so on.
Therefore, it follows, as shown by the diagram, that:
Il. = EZRA 5:15
be built in his place”
HE COMMANDED —“Let the YES EZRA 6:3
foundations be strongly laid”
HIS GOVERNOR - “Sheshbazzar, laid YES EZRA 5:14
the foundation of the house of God
which is in Jerusalem”
HE FULFILLED THE PROPHECY By _ | YES ISATAH 44:28
“saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be
built”
HE DECREED -“the going forth of the YES DANIEL 9:25
commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem”
Although Daniel had understood Isaiah’s prophecy regarding the restoration of Jerusalem and the laying
of the foundation of the temple’s stone by Cyrus, he had been anxious about the 2300 year time prophecy
of Daniel 8:14. He had not yet understood the meaning to the longest time prophecy. Yet he knew the
symbolic language regarding the cleansing of the Sanctuary. It is a language pertaining to the atonement
for the sins of God’s people. Daniel was told that this prophecy was for the time of the end (Daniel 8:17).
That prophecy was given in the last year of the Babylonian King Belshazzar (Dan 8:1) and its
interpretation was revealed in the first year of the Median King Darius (Daniel 9:1). To Daniel it was
explained:
“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street
shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times” (Daniel 9:25).
313
The “going forth” of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem was the first of the three decrees
that the Persian kings enacted: Cyrus’s decree. The phrase used in the Hebrew is X¥ia X¥i7 mdtsa' motsa’.
A going forth, that is, (the act) an egress, or (the place) an exit (Mickelson’s Enhanced Strong’s Greek
and Hebrew Dictionaries). This expression appears only four times in the Bible and it always conveys the
idea of dawning, rising or budding, therefore, the beginning of something.
For instance: The Lord speaks of His going forth prepared as the morning (Hosea 6:3). Psalms 19:6
contains the same expression “mowtsa” referring to the rising of the sun. In Daniel 9:25 it should be
understood according to its original meaning but also according to the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah
who had prophesied of King Cyrus. Therefore, the going forth of the command to restore and to build
Jerusalem represents the first decree, the one that ushered in the dawning of the temple restoration.
Consequently, Cyrus’ enactment is the foremost decree, the beginning of the decrees.
To Restore and to Build
Daniel understood that the restoration and building of Jerusalem was not solely a physical matter but also
a spiritual one. This restoration would begin to take place from the moment God gives repentance to
Israel and it would be concrete until Cyrus enacted his decree to restore to Jerusalem that which was taken
from her.
Notice that the verb “to restore” as used in Daniel 9:25, is the Hebrew word shuwb (shoob) 23 (to turn
back, carry again back, recover, render again... etc.)., That verb is used in Genesis 20:7 when God told
Abimelech to restore the wife of Abraham. Joseph also commanded “to restore” every one of his brothers’
money (Genesis 42:25). David promised Mephibosheth “to restore” all the land, his rightful inheritance
that had been taken from him (2 Sam. 9:7). Shuwb is used to restore the kingdom (2 Sam. 16:3), the
goods (Job 20:10), lands, houses and money (Nehemiah 5:11). It is also used to restore the joy of
salvation in Psalms 51:12. Notice that Shuwb is used in Isaiah 1:26 when God told Jerusalem that He will
restore its judges and counselors as at the beginning in order for Jerusalem to be called “the city of
righteousness the faithful city”. Isaiah’s message is not referring to the physical restoration of a judicial
system but to the spiritual restoration of faithfulness and righteousness because the city has become a
spiritual harlot (Isaiah 1:21). Regarding this restoration Jeremiah had prophesied:
“Yea, thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning the vessels that remain in the house of
the LORD, and in the house of the king of Judah and of Jerusalem. They shall be carried to Babylon, and
there shall they be until the day that I visit them, saith the LORD; then will I bring them up, and restore
them to this place” (Jeremiah 27:21-22).
Now what was it that Cyrus would restore to Jerusalem apart from building the city and the temple? God
had told Jeremiah that the sacred vessels used for the temple service were to be carried to Babylon and
remain there until the Lord’s would again demonstrate His pleasure for Jerusalem (Jeremiah 27:22). But
now notice how the verb Shuwb “to restore” is used in this prophecy when God said concerning His
sacred vessels: “Then will I bring them up, and restore them to this place” (Jeremiah 27:22). You see this
is a vivid example that God is primarily interested in the spiritual restoration of His people. Bear in mind
that faithfulness and righteousness could only be restored if the children of Israel pledged their allegiance
to keep God’s Commandments.
314
King Cyrus fulfilled Jeremiah’s prophecy and put an end to the 70 year desolation of the temple in
Jerusalem. He also fulfilled Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding the restoration of the vessels dedicated to the
house of God. God was faithful to His word in the mouth of Jeremiah when He stirred King Cyrus heart
to issue the prophetic decree as he commanded: “Let the golden and silver vessels of the house of God...
be restored, and brought again unto the temple which is at Jerusalem, everyone to his place, and place
them in the house of God” (Ezra 6:5).
Why does God emphasize the fulfillment of His prophecy regarding Cyrus restoring the holy vessels?
Notice how Ezra highlights Jeremiah’s prophecy in the edict of King Cyrus: “Also Cyrus the king
brought forth the vessels of the house of the LORD, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of
Jerusalem, and had put them in the house of his gods” (Ezra 1:7; 5:14).
Notice that Cyrus was expecting to fulfill God’s prophecy as proclaimed by Isaiah. And Daniel was
expecting both Isaiah and Jeremiah’s prophecies to be fulfilled in the life of King Cyrus. Notice that
Daniel uses the same verb Shuwb “to restore” Daniel 9:25 as in the above mentioned letter of Ezra.
PROPHECY ABOUT THE YES JEREMIAH 27:21-22
VESSELS: “They shall be carried to
Babylon, and there shall they be
until the day that I visit them, saith
the LORD; then will I bring them
up, and restore them to this place”
“Cyrus the king brought forth the | YES EZRA 1:3 EZRA 5:14
vessels of the house of the LORD”
THE DECREE TO RESTORE“Let | YES EZRA 6:5
the golden and silver vessels of the
house of God... be restored, and
brought again unto the temple...”
THE DECREE TO RESTORE: YES DANIEL 9:25
“From the going forth of the
commandment to restore and to
build Jerusalem...”
Jeremiah’s prophecy was not about the reestablishment of the political and legislative system in Jerusalem.
Jeremiah’s prophecy envisioned the act of restoring the temple vessels and the ending of Jerusalem’s
desolations. On the other hand Isaiah’s prophecy foretold the act of laying the foundation stone to the
temple and the act of re-building Jerusalem. Both prophecies were to be fulfilled by the command of
315
Cyrus. Daniel was attentive to Isaiah and Jeremiah’s prophecies and in accordance to those prophecies
God directed him to understand the 2300 year prophecies of Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 9:25-27.
King Cyrus Knew About the Importance of Chronology
Long before it happened, it had been prophesied by God’s prophets that the Persian King Cyrus would
conquer Babylon, and it was fulfilled exactly as prophesied (Isaiah 45:1, 2). But more importantly, this
prophecy was fulfilled in the year 3700, exactly 70 years after the desolations of Jerusalem, which began
in 3630 with the destruction and desolation of the temple. Therefore, when King Cyrus enacted the decree
to restore and to build Jerusalem he stated that it was in order to fulfill Jeremiah’s prophecy (2 Chronicles
36:22). Now, why did Cyrus omit mentioning Isaiah as well? Was not Isaiah’s prophecy also fulfilled on
the day Cyrus enacted his decree? It appears that he understood the importance of chronology in the
fulfillment of prophecies. Therefore he used Jeremiah to let his readers know that the prophecies were
fulfilled by God’s providence, in its exact chronological time. Bear in mind that Jeremiah used extensive
chronological data when he wrote the prophecies.
Artaxerxes’ Decree
Like Cyrus, Artaxerxes also decreed in favor of Jerusalem (Ezra 7:7), namely; that Hebrew exiles go up
to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:13). But when he enacted his decree, the temple building was well advanced. At that
time the Hebrews were given great amounts of silver and gold offerings which Artaxerxes had freely
given to God, “whose habitation is in Jerusalem,” as he expressed (Ezra 7:15). That money was intended
for embellishing the Jewish temple. Artaxerxes’ letter clearly delineates that these Jews were given the
green light to take all the silver and gold that they could find in the province of Babylon together with the
offerings of people and priests. Such money commanded by Artaxerxes, was to be used solely to beautify
the house of their God in Jerusalem (Ezra 7:16).
Notice that the decree is continually directed toward the finishing of the house of the Lord in Jerusalem.
The Jews were also encouraged to set apart offerings for purchasing bullocks, rams, and lambs to be
sacrificed on the altar. Artaxerxes ordered: “offer them upon the altar of the house of your God which is
in Jerusalem” (Ezra 7:17). You see, the temple was already reared up. Artaxerxes also commanded saying:
“The vessels also that are given thee for the service of the house of thy God, those deliver thou before the
God of Jerusalem” (Ezra 7:19).
Those vessels spoken of by Artaxerxes were a free-will gift from him to be used in the temple. But also
remember that according to Jeremiah’s prophecy and as Ezra wrote in his book; the holy vessels taken
from the Jewish temple by Nebuchadnezzar were restored by the Persian King Cyrus when he enacted the
most important decree, it is written:
“And the vessels also of gold and silver of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took out of the
temple that was in Jerusalem, and brought them into the temple of Babylon, those did Cyrus the king, take
out of the temple of Babylon, and they were delivered unto one, whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he
had made governor” (Ezra 5:14).
316
Summing up Artaxerxes decree we conclude that it was intended to further enhance the temple structure,
which, since the edict of King Cyrus, had been in building for many years and was already reared up. The
money offered by Artaxerxes was for the purpose of putting the finishing touches to the building. That is
the reason expressed in Ezra’s prayer of gratitude to God; he prays:
“Blessed be the LORD God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to
beautify the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem” (Ezra 7:27).
He made a decree, allowing the people of - YES EZRA 7:13
Israel, priests and Levites, to go up to
Jerusalem
He gave money for bullocks, rams, lambs _ YES EZRA 7:17
to be offered in the temple
He gave vessels for the service of the house | _ YES EZRA 7:19
of God in Jerusalem
He made the priests, Levites, and singers " YES EZRA 7:24
exempt from paying toll, tribute, or custom
He ordered Ezra to set magistrates and 7 YES EZRA 7:25
judges in Jerusalem
God put in the king's heart, to beautify the | _ YES EZRA 7:27
house of the LORD
By force and power. He decreed that the iv YES EZRA 4:21-23
city of Jerusalem cease to be built.
Nehemiah Travels to Jerusalem
In the 20th year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah who was at the palace, in Shushan (Nehemiah 1:1) received a
visit from Hanani who gave him the bad news that the walls of Jerusalem had been broken down and its
gates had been burned (Nehemiah1:2-3). When Nehemiah received this bad news he began fasting for
several days and prayed before God (Nehemiah 1:7)
Having prayed to God, Nehemiah presented his concerns before Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 2:1). In those
days Nehemiah’s countenance was sad, so the king asked him to give an explanation as to why he looked
so depressed (Nehemiah 2:2). Nehemiah requested the king to let him return to Jerusalem and repair the
317
city’s gates that had been burned (Nehemiah 2:5-6). The time he requested was 12 years, from the 20th
year to the 32nd of King Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 5:14).
When Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem, he found Sanballat and Tobiah, two foes who had been battling
against the work of rebuilding Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:10). But Nehemiah was not discouraged by the
schemes of their enemies, although he acknowledged the distress that their enemies had caused them. He
urged his countrymen: “come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach”
(Nehemiah 2:17). When those foes heard that the walls of Jerusalem had no breach that had not been
repaired, they tried to kill Nehemiah by inviting him to a private meeting with them (Nehemiah 6:1-2).
But Nehemiah declined their invitation. As Tobiah could not do any physical harm to Nehemiah, he
proceeded to write a letter in which he accused the Jews and Nehemiah of rebellion. He invented a report
saying that Nehemiah was building the walls with the purpose of setting himself up as king (Nehemiah
6:6).
Artaxerxes Annuls His Own Decree
Unlike King Cyrus whose decree remained valid all the days of his reign, Artaxerxes nullified his decree
that would have continued to favor the building of Jerusalem.
King Artaxerxes had granted Nehemiah’s request to go and rebuild the city of Jerusalem and its gates
which had been consumed with fire (Nehemiah 2:3). Because he was pressured by his own people,
Artaxerxes canceled the validity of his letter written to Nehemiah and nullified his own decree extended
to Ezra.
According to the will of God, and through Ezra’s request (Ezra 7:6), King Artaxerxes enacted his decree
in the 7th year of his reign (Ezra 7:7). Remember that the purpose of Artaxerxes’ decree was to complete
the work of the house of the Lord, that is to beautify the temple (Ezra 7:27). Ezra was accompanied by
other priests and Levites (Ezra 7:7), indicating that they were consecrated to go and minister for the house
of the Lord in Jerusalem.
On the other hand the letter written to Nehemiah was intended for the work of building and repairing the
walls of Jerusalem. The letter Nehemiah requested from the king and his appointment as governor of
Judah happened in the 20th year of King Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 5:14) So, the temple work was under the
supervision of Priest Ezra, Jerusalem’s gates and its walls were repaired under the supervision of
Governor Nehemiah.
But King Artaxerxes nullified his own decree. He did not remain faithful to his word. Under his command
the rebuilding of the temple was forcefully stopped. It happened when Jerusalem’s walls had been
repaired. This happened when Israel’s fierce enemies Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe
wrote a letter to Artaxerxes, in which they spoke against Jerusalem (Ezra 4:8).
After having received the accusative letter, Artaxerxes commanded that search be made in the palace’s
files for previous trouble from Judah, then he wrote back to Rehum a royal letter in which he acceded to
their schemes and annulled his original decree. He treated the matter hastily and unreasonably. He told
them that in the records it is found that Jerusalem had been guilty of insurrection, rebellion and sedition
318
(Ezra 4:19). Then Artaxerxes proceeded to abolish his own decree and commanded “to cause these men
to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me” (Ezra
4:21). Thus, he commanded that work on the temple cease immediately. Artaxerxes died but he never
lifted up his sanctions against Jerusalem.
Bear in mind that the temple began to be built long before the breaches on the walls of Jerusalem were
repaired. Moreover, that the decree to rebuild the temple should be vetoed had been prophesied two
hundred and seventy five years earlier by the prophet Micah (Micah 1:1). So when Artaxerxes nullified
his own decree, the prophecy of Micah was fulfilled, as he wrote:
“In the day that thy walls are to be built, in that day shall the decree be far removed” (Micah 7:11).
The verb removed is in its original Hebrew form: “rachaq pnn , a primitive root; to widen (in any
direction), that is, (intransitively) recede or (transitively) remove (literally or figuratively, of place or
relation” (Mickelson’s Enhanced Strong’s Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries).
319
CHAPTER TWELVE
ISRAEL: OUT OF BABYLON
Haggai Prophesies on Behalf of the Temple in 3745 A.M.
In the second year of King Darius the Persian, which corresponds to the chronological year 3745, the
Prophet Haggai received word from God and came to address Zerubbabel the Governor of Judah, and
Joshua the High Priest (Haggai 1:1). At that time the Jewish people were arguing that the fulfillment of
the prophecy to finish rebuilding the temple had not yet come (Haggai 1:2). But the prophetic time had
come for finishing the temple. Therefore, Haggai called the attention of these two dignitaries to the
unbelief of the people of Israel. Haggai encouraged Judah’s Governor Zerubbabel and Jerusalem’s High
Priest Joshua to examine the prophecies and learn that the house of the Lord should be finished at the time
appointed by God:
“Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be
glorified, saith the LORD” (Haggai 1:8).
Therefore, both Zerubbabel and Joshua, together with the remnant of the people obeyed the voice of the
Lord their God through Haggai (Haggai 1:12). They feared before the Lord and, together with the people,
were stirred to resume their task of finishing the work in the house of the Lord (Haggai 1:14). The
resumption of the work in the temple took place on the 24th day of the sixth month in the second year of
King Darius (Haggai 1:15).
One month later, as the work in the temple was once again resumed by the faithful Israelites (Haggai 2:1);
Haggai addressed Zerubbabel and Joshua once again with the question: “Who is left among you that saw
this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as
nothing?” (Haggai 2:3). Obviously there were some elderly people among them who had seen the glory of
the first temple, the temple of Solomon. On that occasion Haggai prophesied:
“Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;
and I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory,
saith the LORD of hosts” (Haggai 2:6-7).
This beautiful prophecy was uttered by Haggai regarding the coming of God Almighty, the Prince of
Peace; the Lord Jesus Who would enter through the gates of the second Jewish temple. The prophet wrote:
“The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this
place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts” (Haggai 2:9).
320
God Commands the Rest of His People to Leave Babylon in 3745 A.M.
Zechariah also prophesied that the time for finishing the work in the house of the Lord had fully come. He
began his ministry a few months after Haggai in 3745, particularly in the 8th month of the second year of
King Darius the Persian (Zechariah 1:1). The word of the Lord in the mouth of Zechariah was a rebuke
for Israel’s incredulity and also an encouragement for them to obey the Lord (Zech 1:3). Then again on
the 24th day of the 11th month in the second year of Darius (Zechariah 1:7) Zechariah urged Israel to
search the prophecies, and proclaimed: “Thus saith the Lord: I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my
house shall be built in it...” (Zechariah 1:16).
The temple prefigured an eternal emblem of God’s salvation for the people of Israel. Therefore, Zechariah
compelled his fellow Jews with the following message: “Come forth and flee from the land of the north”
(Zechariah 2:6). And yet again he said: “deliver thyself, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon”
(Zechariah 2: 7).
Prophecy of the Candlestick Prefigures 49 Years
The time had fully come for the temple to be finished. God’s holy prophets had announced that it would
take forty nine years for the house of the Lord to be built. And it was ratified by one of the greatest
visions given to Zechariah (Zechariah 4:1). Zechariah was in bed when the angel asked the prophet to tell
him what he saw. Zechariah answered him saying that he saw a candlestick of pure gold with a bowl on
top of it, it had seven lamps and seven pipes to the seven lamps (Zechariah 4:2). He also saw two olive
trees, one on each side of the candlestick (Zechariah 4:3). The prophet was not aware that the vision
meant that the temple should be built in 49 years. Zechariah was very eager to know what the
interpretation of the vision was, so he asked what are these, my lord? (Zechariah 4:4). The angel expected
Zechariah to know what the two olive trees represent. Therefore, the angel answered him with a question:
“knowest thou not what these be?” “No, my lord,” Zechariah answered (Zechariah 4:5).
“Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, this is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, not
by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts” Zehariah 4:6.
Now, therefore, the two olive trees in the vision of Zechariah signify the Word of God. For the end-time
remnant of God, this is the Old Testament and the New Testament. But in the days of Zechariah it was the
Word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel (Zechariah 4:6), which for the Hebrews was the Law and the Prophets.
Accordingly, the prophet and his contemporaries were presented with one of the mysteries of the
Kingdom of God, so that the honest searchers of truth could understand the prophecies. The seven lamps
and seven pipes (Zechariah 4:2) in the vision represent 49 years. Multiply seven by seven to understand
that the temple was to be built in 49 years. The Word of God revealed that Zerubbabel shall oversee the
temple work for the span of forty nine years.
7x7 =49.
What an honour for one of God’s faithful men, Zerubbabel, the builder in chief of the house of the Lord.
The angel continued with the explanation of Zechariah’s vision:
321
“Who art thou, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth
the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it” (Zechariah 4:7).
But not just the headstone, Zerubbabel was to be the second temple’s builder for the whole span of 49
years. The Word of the Lord made this clear to the prophet, when he said:
“The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou
shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you” (Zechariah 4:9).
Jubilee: a Symbol of Judgment
Another statute of judgment instituted by God was that of the Jubilee (Leviticus 25: 18). It was intended
that Israel should be purged of the degrading wickedness of oppression, the sinful act of great monopolies
in control of goods. God therefore commanded: “ye shall not oppress one another” (Leviticus 25:14).
Moreover, He commanded: “ye shall grant redemption for the land” (Leviticus 25:24). That redemption
of the land consisted in returning every man to his possession in the year of the Jubilee (Leviticus 25:13).
Consequently, every year of Jubilee the land was released from mortgage and also the mortgagees were
set free to return to their properties.
Jubilee served the purpose of converting the Israelites into the image of God, so that God’s people should
administer justice and judgment in Israel. It was celebrated in connection with the Day of Atonement or
Day of Judgment. The Holy Scriptures reveal that on the very day of atonement, in the tenth day of the
seventh month, they sounded the trumpet of the Jubilee (Leviticus 25:9).
The span of time that was counted to celebrate freedom and redemption through the Jubilee was as
follows:
“And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the
seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years” (Leviticus 25:8).
The fiftieth year was named the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:11); it was the following year after the Day
of Atonement celebration in the forty-ninth year. Therefore, the Lord commanded:ye shall hallow the
fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants (Leviticus 25:10). It was
counted as seven sabbaths of years, that is, seven weeks of years; which in this case would result in 49
years; which was the same span for the building of the second temple.
God intended that through the meaning of the Jubilee Israel should see a type of the Messiah, Who was
their redeemer. And it was necessary that the building of the second temple and the celebration of the
Jubilee should coincide so that the Messiah should be represented as their place of refuge and their
Redeemer. Because the Jubilee conveyed the message that in Him we have redemption, it was necessary
that the second temple should be completed forty nine years after their liberation from Babylonian
captivity in the year of Jubilee.
The Prophet Hosea began his prophetic ministry in the reign of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and
Hezekiah (Hos. 1:1); he was contemporary of Isaiah from the year 3458 to 3519. Hosea told Israel that
God will cease their feast days, new moons, Sabbaths and all their solemn feasts (Hosea 2:11). This
322
prophecy was fulfilled a century later when the prophet Jeremiah exclaimed: “The Lord has caused the
solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the
king and the priest” (Lamentations 2:6). “The Lord has cast off his altar, he has abhorred his sanctuary”
(Lamentations 6:7).
But the completion of the temple was not going to take place until the Jews should experience a spiritual
reform and acknowledge that they needed to change their attitude towards the oppressed poor. Through
the Jubilee, God had envisioned a prophecy that had to do with liberating Israel from all vestiges of
oppression. It was due to their oppressive systems that the Jews had been punished and taken captives to
Babylon. It was therefore necessary that Israel be purged of national apostasy and oppression. The temple
and Jerusalem had already undergone 70 years of desolation, yet the people of Israel still had to learn
another lesson. Therefore, the completion work of the temple was going to take 49 years, which are the
seven sabbaths of years until the celebration of the Jubilee. They had been released from their temporal
captivity, but not from their spiritual enslavement, that is, from their oppressive way of thinking.
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Nehemiah Against Corruption
Israel’s corruption was intensifying as they continued falling into idolatry. Then God sent the prophet
Isaiah, the son of Amoz in the days of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah (Isaiah 1:1). He
prophesied from the year 3458 to 3519. Isaiah’s message conveyed God’s disillusionment with regards to
Israel’s fallen state of immorality; so God raised the question: “What could have been done more to my
vineyard, that I have not done in it?” (Isaiah 5:4). Then He forewarnd: “I will lay it waste” (Isaiah 5:6).
Isaiah explained that the vineyard is the house of Israel, where God “looked for judgment, but behold
oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry” (Isaiah 5:7). And the message was against the immoral
monopolization, where a few magnates held control of the means for food and daily living. Such
monopolists in the house of Israel were condemned harshly with a word of retributive judgment: “Woe
unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed
alone in the midst of the earth! (Isaiah 5:8). Their due punishment was a severe famine because of their
wickedness (Isaiah 5:10).
Prior to the Babylonian captivity Israel’s moral decadence had peaked as corruption had invaded all
institutions of society, even the very priesthood. God sent Jeremiah from the 13th year of King Josiah to
the 11th year of King Zedekiah (Jeremiah 1:2-3). Thus, for the span of 41 years, from the year 3589 to
3630, that faithful prophet warned Israel of the impending judgment to punish their wickedness. His
message was against Jerusalem; as he said: “this is the city to be visited; she is wholly oppression in the
midst of her” (Jeremiah 6:6). Jeremiah also pronounced Israel’s wretchedness as their condition was ripe
for God’s retributive judgments. He said: “Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness and
his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work”
(Jeremiah 22:13). So degraded was Israel’s spiritual condition that the whole nation was sold to greed and
dishonesty; even the prophets and priests were profane and their wickedness was found inside the temple
(Jeremiah 23:11). Jeremiah therefore, disclosed their wickedness:
“For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from
the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely” (Jeremiah 6:13).
323
From the midst of Babylon God also raised Ezekiel the prophet who reproved Israel’s wickedness for
having oppressed the stranger (Ezekiel 22:7). Israel had a spiritual problem, they committed lewdness
(Ezekiel 22:9). Many of their people were accustomed to take usury, which they had greedily exacted
from their neighbours by extortion (Ezekiel 22:12). There was a conspiracy by false prophets who
coveted the sustenance of the widows in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 22:25). Likewise the priests violated God’s
law and profaned His holy things (Ezekiel 22:26). Jerusalem’s princes were ready to destroy souls and
shed blood, to gain dishonest gain (Ezekiel 22:27). And the nation as a whole used oppression and
exercised robbery and vexed the poor and needy (Ezekiel 22:29). But God was purging Israel of all their
wickedness. Ezekiel proclaimed: “My princes shall no more oppress my people” (Ezekiel 45:8). Then the
counsel was readily given: “O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and
justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord” (Ezekiel 45:9). And the command was
delivered to all classes of society: “Ye shall have just balances...” (Ezekiel 45:10). God’s reproach was
directly to the priests who had for a long time used extortion and robbed the people of their sustenance
(Ezekiel 45:13-14).
The Jubilee was coming in 3749; this was a most significant celebration because it also concurred with
the dedication of the second Jewish temple. But the Jews should rid of their oppressive lifestyle. It wasn’t
long after the Jews returned from Babylon that they returned to their old habit of oppression. The word of
God came to Judah’s Governor Nehemiah prior to the completion of the temple work. Nehemiah was
shocked by the exactions that were imposed by the more powerful in Jerusalem. Complaints were
addressed to the Governor revealing their sorrowful condition. “We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards,
and houses so that we buy corn” they complained (Nehemiah 5:4). Some of the peoples’ complaints were
that they had to borrow money for the king’s tribute (Nehemiah 5: 4). Others had been driven to extreme
poverty to the extent of selling their children as slaves, whom they had no means of redeeming because
their lands were in the hands of different landowners (Nehemiah 5:5). Then Nehemiah appealed to their
consciences and protested against their conduct. He recalled their recent exile experience in Babylon, and
how they had been released from captivity, and yet the Jews were continuing to oppress their own people
(Nehemiah 5:8-9). Therefore, the Governor said: “I pray you, let us leave off this usury” (Nehemiah 5:10).
Nehemiah finished his speech by pleading with Israel to restore on that very day, all the lands, vineyards,
olive yards, and houses; plus a hundred per cent of the money, corn, wine and oil that they had exacted
from them (Nehemiah 5:11). And the people responded positively, as they said: “We will restore to them
and will require nothing of them.” (Nehemiah 5:12). Thus, on that day, the people of God won the victory
over their enemy; the love of money!
Second Jewish Temple Finished in 3749 A.M.
The people had finally understood God’s providence in King Cyrus’ decree to rebuild the temple. The
prophecy indicated that it would take 49 years to re-build it. Therefore, the seven weeks of Daniel 9:25 is
a reminder of the counting of seven Sabbaths of years in Leviticus 25:8. Both accounts would indicate
that a great celebration of the Jubilee took place at the opening ceremony of the second Jewish temple.
After 49 years, Israel was ready to celebrate their Jubilee of liberation from Babylonian captivity. But
more importantly, theirs was a Jubilee of liberation from selfish oppression of one another. What else
could bring greater joy than the completion of the house of the Lord culminating in Israel’s spiritual
reform as urged by the prophets of the Lord?
324
Centuries later, when the Lord Jesus entered that temple, He rebuked the changers of money and expelled
the merchants of oxen, sheep and doves together with their stock (John 2:14). As he drove them out with
a scourge (John 2:15) He told them: “make not my Father's house an house of merchandise” (John 2:16).
The puzzled Jews asked Jesus for a sign in regard to His authority for having cleansed the temple in such
a dramatic way (John 2:18). The Lord Jesus replied to them: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up” (John 2:19). They misunderstood Him, but He spoke of the temple of His body (John 2:21).
However, the Jews tried to correct the Lord in regards to His knowledge about Israel’s history, they said:
“Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?” (John 2:20).
Of course the cunning Jews were wrong even in their historical data. They erred as they relied on their
traditions and apocryphal books and did not search the Law and the Prophets for authentic historical data.
The Scriptures clearly reveal that King Cyrus issued his decree in the first year of his reign (2 Chronicles
36: 22 Ezra 1:1), which was the year 3700. Although Cyrus had released Israel from captivity and given
them permission to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem, they did not lay the foundation stone nor begin
working in the building of the second temple until the second year of their return to Jerusalem (Ezra 3:8).
Technically the temple work began from the moment that the Israelites carried building materials from
Babylon to Jerusalem. Here we gain one more year.
Another matter to consider is that there were at least two years when work ceased because the fickle
Artaxerxes abolished his own decree. Notice that when Artaxerxes declared sanctions on Jerusalem, he
commanded that the city be not built until another commandment shall be given from him (Ezra 4:21). At
the writing of Artaxerxes’ abolition of his own decree the arch-enemies of Israel compelled the Jews to
stop building the temple as well as the city walls. Thus the work was stopped until the second year of the
reign of Darius King of Persia (Ezra 4:24). Here we have the last year of Artaxerxes when he abolished
the permit for building the temple and the first year of Darius who had not yet reopened the construction
permit until his second year in power (Haggai 1:15). Therefore, we conclude that the stoppage time for
building the second temple was three years but the finishing work and dedication happened at the end of
49 years.
The Word of God declares that “to do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice”
Proverbs 21:3). Forty nine years had elapsed since the day when King Cyrus had issued the decree to
rebuild the house of the Lord. Justice and mercy had prevailed; the people of God had been granted
deliverance in the name of the Lord. The temple work was finished and the temple inaugurated in the year
3749; Ezra wrote that historical date as follows:
“And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign
of Darius the king. And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of
the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy” (Ezra 6:15 -16).
Bear in mind that there were two Kings named Darius. Darius the Median who took the kingdom (Daniel
5: 31; Daniel 9:1; Daniel 11:1) after Cyrus had conquered Babylon, this Darius died in the same year of
his reign and Cyrus the Persian took over the kingdom. In the Medo-Persian Empire reigned yet another
Darius, he is called Darius the Persian, he ordered the completion of the temple at Jerusalem (Ezra 4:5;
4:24; 6:15; Nehemiah 12:22).
325
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
CHRONOLOGY OF THE EXILE AND RESTORATION
Introduction
The chronology of the historical books included in this chapter embraces the Babylonian exile and the
restoration—that is, from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in the Neo-Babylonian Empire to that of Darius II
in the Persian Empire that followed it. In this period, more than in any other, the Bible narrative can be
aligned with the sequence of historical events and with the ebb and flow of political, religious, and social
forces in the Near East. This is possible because modern archaeologists have unearthed many
monumental inscriptions and thousands of public and private documents. The latter were written mostly
on clay tablets in Mesopotamia, with a smaller number on papyri in Egypt, some of which were found
still rolled up and sealed.
These ancient original documents include contracts, deeds, other legal papers, letters, receipts, literary,
historical, or religious texts, decrees, and diplomatic correspondence, written by professional scribes, but
mostly relating to individuals. They furnish significant details about property, debts, wages, taxes, and the
cost of living. They throw light on social customs—slavery, marriage, divorce—and occasionally reveal
unexpected items of human interest. A mere inventory of personal property draws a vivid picture of a
bride’s trousseau—her new dresses, one flounced, another striped, and so on—complete with her wicker
clothes chest, her bronze mirror and bowls, and her little pots of cosmetics. A series of dated receipts tells
a story of graft at the capital. And the date lines, in terms of the numbered years of many successive kings,
are of prime importance in dating the reigns.
These ancient documents have piled up in museum storerooms faster than they can be translated and
published. For example, the Brooklyn Museum Papyri, acquired more than 50 years before they were
published in 1953, furnish a link in the chain of evidence for the Jewish calendar after the Exile, hence for
the dating of Ezra and Nehemiah, and thus of the decree of Artaxerxes “to restore and to build Jerusalem,”
on which two important time prophecies hinge.
In Ezra and Nehemiah, in Jeremiah and Daniel, in Haggai and Zechariah, are numerous dates in terms of
the years of certain kings in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian empires. These dates can be located with a
greater degree of certainty than those of any preceding or subsequent period of Bible history, and some of
them are connected with important events such as the fall of Jerusalem, or prophecies such as the 70-year
captivity or the 70 weeks.
Many events of the captivity and restoration of the Jews can be dated with certainty to the year, and often
to the day—allowing always for the possibility of a day’s variation in the calculation of a lunar-calendar
date, and sometimes of a month in case of uncertainty as to which year had the 13th month. Therefore in
the previous section, exact B.C. dates are sometimes given, with the high probability that they are correct
to the day. The Babylonian month dates are derived from Parker and Dubberstein, Babylonian
Chronology, and the 5th century Jewish dates from the tabulation by Horn and Wood. In some cases there
326
is room for difference of opinion. For this reason a discussion of the means of arriving at these dates, and
of the probable degree of certainty, is desirable. It is the purpose of this chapter to explain the dating
employed in the previous section. The second section of this chapter will show how the archeological
source documents provide the basis for a relatively complete B.C. dating of these reigns. Then a
following section will take up the specific problems of Biblical chronology for this period.
Chronological Background of the Period Established
Ptolemy’s Canon - The reigns of Babylonian and Persian kings during the captivity-restoration period
are well established by numerous source documents. Most of these have come to light in recent decades.
But formerly scholars depended on the canon, or list, of kings compiled by the Egyptian astronomer
Ptolemy in the 2nd century A.D. Ptolemy’s Canon gives the lengths of the successive reigns of
Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian-Egyptian, and Roman rulers from February 26, 747 B.C., to Ptolemy’s
day, reckoned in Egyptian years. This scale of Egyptian calendar years has been definitely fixed by a
series of eclipses mentioned by Ptolemy in his astronomical work known as The Almagest—eclipses
dated to the day and hour in the Egyptian-calendar reckoning and identified with specific B.C. dates by
modern astronomers.
NOTE: The question may be raised as to why Ptolemy’s eclipses can be dated so confidently, since the eclipse on which the
Assyrian limmu list hinges has been assigned to more than one possible date. The reason is that the Assyrian record gives only
the lunar month, while Ptolemy records 19 eclipses, dated to the day and hour, with the intervals between the eclipses stated
precisely, in an Egyptian calendar era. A full moon (at which a lunar eclipse must always occur) falls on the same date in our
calendar only once in 19 years; and in Ptolemy’s Egyptian calendar, with its gradual backward shift, a full-moon date can recur
only after 25 years. Since only twice out of 12 or 13 full-moon dates in a year can the moon be eclipsed, the possibility of
duplication is reduced still further. That is why there can be no doubt about Ptolemy’s eclipse dates.
Ptolemy’s Canon was derived from ancient records, and was subsequently recopied many times before it
became available to modern scholars. Therefore some chronologists of a century or two ago felt free to
revise the canon dating according to their theories. But in recent times Ptolemy’s accuracy has been
increasingly confirmed by documents much more ancient than the canon, and free from the accumulated
small errors so often found in recopied manuscripts.
Babylonian Tablets Outline the Reigns - Since the birth of modern archeology, the gradually
accumulating information derived from the Babylonian clay tablets has pieced together a pattern not only
of the historical background but also of the chronology of the period. However trivial the contents of
these documents, the date lines of a series of them, when arranged in time order, show approximately the
time of the year at which each king came to the throne.
For example, if all the known tablets written during a series of reigns are arranged in time order, it will be
noticed that the latest dated in one reign and the earliest in the succeeding reign are very close together,
sometimes on the same day. A series of tablets might be compiled thus:
Nebuchadnezzar 43 6 14
(43yrs)
327
me 43 6 26
Amel-Marduk (2yrs) “beginning of reign” 6 26
“ ar 7 19
~ 1 2 1
7 1 11 18
“ 2 3 15
. 2 5 ry
Nergal—shar—usur “beginning of reign” 5 23
“ aca 6 12 etc.
The italicized dates show that the first tablet in the reign of Amel-Marduk (Biblical Evil-merodach) is
dated the 26th of the 6th month, the same day as the last dated in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, and that
the last dated to Amel-Marduk, on the 17th of the 5th month of his 2nd year, is followed in less than a
week, on the 23rd of the 5th month, by a tablet dated in the reign of his successor. Thus the length of his
rule is known almost exactly. The series is similar for other reigns, with the earliest tablets in the
“beginning of the reign” coming in the last part of the year that had begun as the last numbered year of
the preceding king. Occasionally the tablet dates overlap, because documents written in distant villages
were still dated in the old reign until news of the king’s death arrived, while scribes in the capital were
using the new king’s name.
The series of earliest and latest tablets, whenever available, corroborates the lengths of the Babylonian
and Persian reigns as given in Ptolemy’s Canon, and points out approximately the month and day of the
new king’s accession. Dated tablets also show that the remaining portion of the last calendar year of the
old king, between the change of reign and the next New Year’s Day (Nisan 1, in the spring) was called
the “beginning of the reign,” or, as modern translators put it, “accession year,” while “year 1” was the
first full calendar year.
NOTE: The Jewish-Egyptian papyri from Egypt similarly harmonize with Ptolemy’s Canon and show that the Jews used the
accession-year system also; but they indicate that the Egyptians called the remainder of the (Egyptian) year in which the
accession took place “year 1,” not the “beginning of reign,” or “accession year”
Series of Tablets Give Relative Chronology - The tablets of this type (or the similar papyri from Egypt)
supply only relative chronology. The whole series of Babylonian regnal years remains on a sliding scale
in relation to the B.C. scale until we have some established B.C. dating on which to anchor the series.
Ptolemy’s Canon and his eclipse records fix the B.C. dating of the years of the Egyptian calendar, not that
of Babylonian. Although the incomplete series of relatively dated Babylonian tablets seems to agree with
Ptolemy, they are not conclusive, because they are dated in a different calendar, and are sometimes
subject to varying interpretations. The Saros Tablets (from the Seleucid period) contain a list of regnal
328
years, 18 years apart in the saros cycle. These regnal years harmonize with Ptolemy and with the dated
tablets as to the lengths of the reigns, but do not independently fix any B.C. date. But two tablets have
furnished a check on Ptolemy’s Canon and offer definite, contemporary evidence for the B.C. equivalents
of the Babylonian years. These will be discussed next.
Two Astronomical Tablets Fix Babylonian Dating - Of unique value are two independent tablets—
contemporary texts, each giving astronomical data covering a whole year. The first of these, from the 37th
year of Nebuchadnezzar, contains a series of observations from Nisan | (Babylonian New Year’s Day),
year 37, through Nisan 1, year 38. The date for a single observation might be suspected of error, but
modern astronomers tell us that a combination of records such as that appearing on this tablet, relating to
the positions, of sun, moon, and planets, all of which move in differing cycles, can be located exactly in
only one year. Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year was beyond doubt the Babylonian lunar-calendar year
extending from April 23, 568 B.C. (to be exact, April 22/23, sundown to sundown) through April 12, 567
B.C. This of course places the Ist official year (that is, the first full year) of Nebuchadnezzar at 604/03
B.C., spring to spring, and similarly fixes all the years of his reign.
The second text of this kind contains a similar series of calculated astronomical data (proved correct by
modern computation) fixing the 7th year of Cambyses as the Babylonian calendar year April 7, 523, to
March 26, 522 B.C. (The Persian rulers, as kings of Babylon also, adopted the Babylonian calendar.) This
tablet of Cambyses’ reign is particularly interesting because among other data it records an eclipse
(calculated to have occurred on July 16, 523 B.C.) that is identical with one dated by Ptolemy in the same
7th year. Thus both ancient dating scales—the Egyptian solar years of Ptolemy and the Babylonian-
Persian lunar years—are aligned with a fixed point in the B.C. scale and with each other.
Alignment of Egyptian and Babylonian Years - This eclipse establishes the alignment of Ptolemy’s
Egyptian years with the corresponding Babylonian years. Ptolemy began the 1st year of Cambyses by the
Egyptian calendar on Thoth 1, January 3, 529 B.C., approximately three months before Cambyses’ Ist
year began in the Babylonian calendar. Other source evidence shows that throughout this period any
given year of any reign began, similarly, three to four months earlier in the Egyptian calendar than the
same year in the Babylonian-Persian reckoning. The interval became progressively longer, because the
Babylonian year always began following a new moon of March or April, while the Egyptian year had a
gradual backward shift.
Double-dated Papyri From Egypt Yield Exact Dates - A contemporary check on the B.C. dating of the
Persian reigns during the greater part of the 5th century B.C. is furnished by numerous documents written
on papyrus in the Aramaic language and found at the Jewish settlement on the island of Elephantine, in
southern Egypt. Fourteen out of approximately one hundred of these are double-dated, carrying an
Egyptian (solar) month date and a Jewish (lunar) month date, and in some cases two regnal year numbers
differing in the two calendars. These double dates can be located in the B.C. scale within range of a single
day.
NOTE: The method of arriving at the date of one of the Elephantine papyri can best be explained by an example (Papyrus 6 in
the Brooklyn Museum collection published in 1953). A Jewish father’s gift of (part of?) a house to his daughter, who was to be
married, was dated “on the 8th of Pharmuthi, which is the 8th day of Tammuz, year 3 of Darius” (II). Since Egypt was part of the
Persian Empire at that time, the year was designated as numbered in the reign of the Persian ruler, but Pharmuti 8 is an
Egyptian month date. The various nationalities in the empire retained their own calendars, and in this case the Jewish colonists
329
at Elephantine used two calendars, the Jewish (lunar) and the Egyptian (solar). The problem is to find the year in which the 8th
of the lunar month Tammuz happens to correspond to the 8th of the Egyptian month of Pharmuthi.
Since the Egyptians had a 365-day year, and no leap years, any Egyptian calendar date shifted a day earlier every four years by
our reckoning. Consequently the Egyptian New Year’s Day (Thoth 1), which came on what we call February 26 at the starting
point of Ptolemy’s Canon, had shifted back to January in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and had moved into December in the reign
of Darius I. The Egyptian years for this period are known from Ptolemy’s Canon and eclipse data; Pharmuthi 8 in the reign of
Darius IIT was July, corresponding closely to the lunar month of Tammuz, which always began in June or July. But in only one
year could Pharmuthi 8 be also Tammuz 8, since any Egyptian date moves one day in four years, but any lunar date shifts at least
10 or 11 days a year in our reckoning. The following table shows that the only possible year for this papyrus was 420 B.C.:
422 July 12/13 (sunrise to sunrise) July 4/5 (sunset to sunset)
421 July 11/12 (sunrise to sunrise) July 22/23 (sunset to sunset)
> | 420 July 11/12 (sunrise to sunrise) July 11/12 (sunset to sunset)
419 July 11/12 (sunrise to sunrise) July 1/2 (sunset to sunset)
418 July 11/12 (sunrise to sunrise) July 20/21 (sunset to sunset)
417 July 10/11 (sunrise to sunrise) July 8/9 (sunset to sunset)
Since Pharmuthi 8 and Tammuz 8 can be harmonized only in 420 B.C., this is evidently the year in which the papyrus was written.
This was the year 3 in the Jewish fall-to-fall calendar. Ordinarily the year given on a papyrus is the Egyptian year, but in this
case the date does not fit either the Egyptian or the Persian year 3, which covered the summer of 421 instead. Similarly in other
double-dated papyri the Egyptian month date is possible in four consecutive years, but the lunar date can agree with the
Egyptian in only one of these years. Thus the B.C. dates of these papyri can be determined.
These papyri are in complete harmony with the pattern indicated by the other chronological information
on these reigns. Their Egyptian dating, agreeing with Ptolemy’s regnal years, shows that Ptolemy’s
Canon was based on contemporary Egyptian reckoning. Their Jewish dates, reckoned by the accession-
year system, harmonize with the Babylonian-Persian numbering, but not the beginning, of the years, for
one of the papyri shows clearly that these Jews were using their own fall-to-fall civil year, not the spring-
to-spring Babylonian year.
Thus by the two astronomically fixed years (the 37th of Nebuchadnezzar and the 7th of Cambyses), and
by the double-dated papyri from Egypt, the regnal years of six of the Babylonian and Persian kings are
positively known on contemporary evidence. Ptolemy’s eclipses add two more reigns that are apparently
in harmony with these six. If the lengths of the other reigns as we have them are correct (and the evidence
on these—from Ptolemy’s Canon, the Saros Tablets, and the series of dated tablets from Babylonia—
seems to harmonize), then we can be certain of the B.C. equivalent of every regnal year of every
Babylonian and Persian king throughout the period covered in this chapter, as reckoned in both the
Egyptian solar and the Babylonian lunar calendars.
How to Locate a B.C. Dating of a Regnal Year - The reader who desires to locate any given Babylonian
or Persian regnal year may refer to the table of Ptolemy’s Canon. The B.C. dates given in the two
330
supplementary columns at the right indicate the beginning of the official 1st year of each reign according
to the Egyptian calendar (except that Ptolemy leaves out those kings who ruled less than a year, such as
Labashi-Marduk, who followed Nergal-sharusur). From the year 1, any other year in the reign can be
calculated to the day by computing years of exactly 365 days each, with no leap year. Throughout this
period each Babylonian-Persian regnal year (in the Babylonian calendar) began on the next Nisan 1 after
the corresponding Egyptian New Year; it always began after a new moon of late March or April. Thus the
1st year of Xerxes in the Egyptian calendar was 486/85 B.C. (beginning in December), but his year 1 in
Babylonia was 485/84 B.C., spring to spring, while the corresponding Jewish year for Xerxes would
presumably begin last of all, in the autumn of 485 (Tishri 1, following a new moon of late September to
late October). But this Jewish sequence is not consistent. In some reigns the Jewish year would precede
the corresponding Babylonian year by six months, while in others it would follow, depending on which
New Year’s Day—Babylonian or Jewish—arrived first after the date of accession to usher in the Ist year
of the reign.
NOTE: There is no reason to doubt that Jewish mode of regnal reckoning was the accession-year system, since that method
seems to have been in use in the late period of Judah, shortly before the Exile, and is indicated for the only Jewish-calendar
evidence in the Persian period, the double-dated papyri. If that system is applied to each king’s date of accession in this period,
as derived from the various source materials, the result will be the following alignment of the Jewish regnal years with the
Babylonian regnal years carrying the same number:
1. The Jewish year would begin in the autumn preceding the corresponding Babylonian spring year in the reigns of the
Babylonian kings (Nebuchadnezzar through Nabonidus), and also of the Persian king Cambyses.
2. The Jewish year would begin in the autumn following the corresponding Babylonian year in the reigns of the Persian kings
(Cyrus through Darius II) except Cambyses.
Before Nabopolassar and after Darius II there is insufficient evidence from the tablets to fix the date of accession. The reigns of
less than one year are not relevant.
This section has summarized the established basis on which any date in this period that is expressed in
terms of regnal years can be computed. On the Egyptian and Babylonian-Persian dating scholars in
general are agreed; the only room for variance of opinion is a difference in certain dates as calculated in
the Babylonian spring-to-spring year and the Jewish fall-to-fall civil year. This difference will be
discussed in the following sections of this chapter in connection with specific Biblical dates relating to the
captivity and restoration of the Jews.
Beginning of the Captivity Under Nebuchadnezzar
The book of 2 Chronicles ends, and Ezra begins, with the narrative of the return of the Jews to Palestine
from 70 years’ captivity in Babylonia. The first chronological problem of this chapter, therefore, is the
dating of the Exile.
The 70 Years Predicted by Jeremiah - The 70 years’ captivity has generally been accepted as beginning
with the first deportation of Jews to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, and as ending with the return of a large
group of the exiles under Zerubbabel, authorized by a decree of Cyrus in his Ist regnal year. The period
has often been dated 606-536 B.C. Since an ancient lunar year cannot coincide with a Julian-calendar B.C.
year beginning with January, ancient years are more accurately expressed in double form, thus: 606/05
331
B.C., etc. Therefore, to express it more exactly, this 70-year period would be, in the Jewish civil calendar,
606/05-537/36 B.C.
Jeremiah first predicted the 70-year captivity in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, or the Ist year of
Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1-11), which was, according to the Jewish civil calendar, 605/04 B.C.,
from autumn to autumn. However, he still spoke of a 70-year captivity in a letter to the leaders who had
been exiled to Babylon along with Jehoiachin seven years after his earlier prophecy (Jeremiah 29:1, 10).
It would seem logical, then, to suppose that the prophetic period was reckoned, not from either prediction,
but from a specific event, one that most reasonably fulfilled the requirements of the prophecy, namely, the
beginning of the captivity. Both of the prophet’s predictions evidently referred to the captivity already
begun (as will be seen) in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim (Daniel 1:1-6).
The Captivity in Three Stages - The deportation to Babylonia took place in three principal stages, in the
reigns of the last three kings of Judah:
(1) in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, when some of the Temple treasures and a number of captives, including
Daniel, were taken to Babylon (Daniel 1:1-3);
(2) at the end of the three-month reign of Jehoiachin, in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:8-
16), when Jehoiachin, with others including Ezekiel, was taken captive (Ezekiel 1:1-3; 33:21; 40:1); and
(3) in the 11th year of Zedekiah, the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, when Jerusalem and the Temple were
destroyed and the larger portion of the remaining inhabitants were deported to Babylonia (2 Kings 25:8-
21).
Since Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is fixed astronomically, these three stages can be dated at 605, 597, and
586 respectively.
First Stage at Nebuchadnezzar’s Accession - The beginning of the captivity came in Nebuchadnezzar’s
accession year, before his year 1, for:
(1) the 3rd year of Jehoiakim was the year in which Nebuchadnezzar came against Judah and took Daniel
captive (Daniel 1:1-3, 6); and
(2) the 4th year of Jehoiakim was the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1).
Corroborating this are (a) the record of Josephus (Against Apion i. 19), derived from that of the
Babylonian historian Berosus, that Nebuchadnezzar was on a military campaign to Palestine and Egypt
when suddenly called home to take the throne at the death of his father, Nabopolassar, and that he left
captives, including Jews, to be brought home by the army; and (b) the Babylonian Chronicle tablet that
dates his father’s death on Ab 8 (approximately August 15 in 605) and Nebuchadnezzar’s accession in
Babylon on Elul 1 (approximately September 7).
Accordingly, Nebuchadnezzar’s official Ist year would begin in Babylonia at the next New Year’s Day,
in the spring of 604 B.C. According to the Jewish reckoning, however, by the fall-to-fall civil year, it
would be counted as beginning at the next Jewish New Year after the accession, about October, 605, not
long after the first deportation. The prophecy of Jeremiah could have come very soon after, in the 4th year
of Jehoiakim. Everyone would naturally have understood his 70-year prediction as referring to the
332
captivity that had just begun. This date for the captivity, the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, 605 B.C., is in
complete harmony with the dating of Nebuchadnezzar’s accession, and with the return of the exiles at the
end of 70 years, inclusive.
The Older Theory of Nebuchadnezzar’s Supposed co-regency - Earlier commentators reached a
different date in their attempt to account for (1) “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon” taking Daniel captive
in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim before the Ist year of his reign (the 4th year of Jehoiakim); (2) Daniel’s three
years of training (Daniel 1:5) before the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:1, 13); and (3) 70 years
between the Ist year of Nebuchadnezzar and the Ist year of Cyrus (which Ptolemy placed in 604 and 538
B.C. respectively).
In seeking to solve these apparent discrepancies, Bible scholars equated Jehoiakim’s 4th year with 606 as
the Ist year of a conjectured 2-year co regency of Nebuchadnezzar with his father; (See NOTE) they
assigned Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to the 2nd year of his sole reign, with three years in between for
Daniel’s schooling; and they reckoned the 70 years from 606 to 536, to which they adjusted the Ist year
of Cyrus. Eventually this explanation came to be taken for granted, and to be regarded as established
history instead of a learned conjecture.
NOTE: The conjecture that Nebuchadnezzar had a two-year co regency is credited to Petavius (Petau), a 17th-century Jesuit
scholar. Petavius also conjectured a co regency of 10 years for Artaxerxes I, in order to begin the 71 weeks with the 20th year of
the reign as counted from the beginning of the co regency. Ussher, with a slightly different ending date for the 70 weeks, followed
Petavius in shifting Artaxerxes, but he abandoned Ptolemy here and placed Xerxes’ death 9 years earlier than the canon date for
Artaxerxes’ reign. Few Protestant commentators followed this chronology for Artaxerxes, but for more than two centuries the
margins of the Douay Bible and tables in the back of many KJV editions carried Ussher’s 467 and 454 B.C. for Ezra 7 and
Nehemiah 2.
Now, however, the supposed discrepancies in the Bible have vanished completely in the light of the
documents unearthed by modern archeology. The account is confirmed as it stands, for it is now known
that: (1) Nebuchadnezzar was king for some months before his “first year” began; (2) Daniel’s training—
if if it began in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year, extended through the Ist year, and ended in the 2nd
year—would have been counted as lasting three years by the inclusive reckoning commonly used at that
time; and (3) the use of the Jewish fall-to-fall civil year makes it possible to reckon the 70 years
inclusively from 606/05 to 537/36 B.C. without juggling the reigns.
The Dating of the 70 Years’ Captivity - If the first year of the 70-year captivity foretold by Jeremiah
was 606/05 B.C., autumn to autumn—the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, in which Daniel and others were taken
to Babylon—then the 70th year of that period was 537/36 B.C. It will be seen, furthermore, in Section V
that the return of the exiles under Zerubbabel, following the decree of the Ist year of Cyrus, can be
assigned reasonably to this year.
Before leaving the period of the beginning of the captivity, however, it is necessary to note the basis for
the dating of the second and third steps in the process. This is found in the chronology of Jeremiah, who
predicted the 70 years’ captivity, and of Ezekiel, who was exiled to Babylonia with Jehoiachin.
333
The Chronology of Jeremiah and Ezekiel
Dates in Jeremiah and Ezekiel - The prophet Jeremiah began his work in the 13th year of Josiah,
approximately 627 B.C. (Jeremiah 25:3), not long before the accession of Nabopolassar,
Nebuchadnezzar’s father, who was soon to win Babylon’s independence from Assyria, to join with the
Medes and Scythians to overthrow Assyria, and then to build an empire of his own (known as the Neo-
Babylonian Empire). During these international upheavals Jeremiah warned that Judah must repent or fall
a prey to foreign powers. In the 4th year of Jehoiakim, “the first year of Nebuchadnezzar,” he foretold the
70-year captivity, and many of his messages are dated to the month, day, and regnal year of Jehoiakim or
Zedekiah (see Jeremiah 25:1; 26:1; 45:1; 36:9, 10; 28:1; 51:59; 39:1; 32:1). His ministry to Judah ended
with the third principal stage of the captivity, at the fall of Jerusalem in 586.
Ezekiel was taken to Babylon with his king, Jehoiachin, in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (see on 2
Kings 24:12; also on 2 Chronicles 36:9, 10), in the second principal stage of the captivity, in the spring of
597 B.C. Then he received his prophetic call in the 5th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin (Ezekiel 1:2),
and dated his prophetic messages in years reckoned in era fashion from this captivity (see Ezekiel 1:1, 2;
8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 29:1; 26:1; 30:20; 31:1; 33:21; 32:1; 40:1; 29:17). His chronological reckoning must be
considered in connection with that of Jeremiah, who dealt with some of the same events. Seven principal
events are tabulated here, dated in years of Jehoiachin’s captivity and regnal years of Zedekiah (with B.C.
dates as arrived at in the succeeding paragraphs).
1.10 10 9 Beginning of | Ezekiel 24:1,2 | Jan 588
siege (Ezekiel)
2.10 | 10 9 Beginning of | Jeremiah 39:1; | Jan 588
siege (Jeremiah) | 52:4
3.9 4 11 End of siege; city | Jeremiah 39:2 | July 586
falls
4.10 | 5 11 City and Temple | Jeremiah 1:3; | Aug 586
destroyed 52:12
5.9 10 12 Message reaches | Ezekiel 33:21 Jan 585
Ezekiel
6.10 | 1277? | 25 14th yr. from | Ezekiel 40:1 573/72
city’s fall
7295 12 37 Jehoiachin Jeremiah March 561
released in “the | 52:31; cf. 2
year’ of Evil- | Kings 25:27
Merodach
334
The foregoing events from the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel must be dated consistently with one another;
also with Jeremiah’s statement (chapter 32:1) synchronizing Zedekiah’s 10th year and Nebuchadnezzar’s
18th, and with those (Jeremiah 52:5, 12; 2 Kings 25:2, 8) placing the fall and destruction of Jerusalem in
the summer of Zedekiah’s 11th year and Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th. The latter’s regnal years, astronomically
fixed in the Babylonian spring-to-spring calendar, would begin half a year earlier in the Jewish civil (fall-
to-fall) calendar; hence this summer date, in the half year during which the spring and fall years
overlapped, would be in year 19 in either calendar, that is, in 586 B.C. (See NOTE) But Jehoiachin’s
capture, which a Babylonian chronicle dates on Adar 2 in Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year (approximately
March 16, 597 B.C.), falls in his year 8 by Jewish count (being in the non-overlapping part of the year).
NOTE: Some modern authorities say 587, holding either (1) that the Bible writers (except in Jeremiah 52:28, 29) numbered
Nebuchadnezzar’s regnal years one year higher than he himself did by the official Babylonian count, or (2) that the 19th year (2
Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12) is erroneous and must be corrected to the 18th year by Jeremiah 52:29. But the last-mentioned
verse refers only the taking of a few captives not to the fall of Jerusalem; whereas verse 12 of the same chapter makes the
Babylonians enter the city in the 19th year, in harmony with 2 Kings. Therefore there is actually no discrepancy, and 586 may be
considered established. The question as to whether Jeremiah means to equate the 4th year of Jehoiakim with the accession year
or with the Ist year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1) is not relevant to the Zedekiah-Nebuchadnezzar synchronisms.
The Various Possibilities Tested - Opinions differ as to (a) whether Jeremiah and Ezekiel counted the
years from spring or fall, and (b) whether the “1st year” of Jehoiachin’s captivity meant the year in which
he was captured or the one beginning next thereafter, but it may be assumed (1) that both writers agree in
dating the beginning of the siege, (2) that the news of the city’s fall must reach Ezekiel in a reasonable
time (in 6 rather than 18 months), and (3) that Jehoiachin’s release must fall in either the accession year or
the year 1 of Amel-Marduk. A consideration of all possible combinations of the variables (a) and (b),
along with the above-mentioned specifications, seems to yield two most probable alternatives.
The B.C. Datings of Jeremiah and Ezekiel - The precise methods of reckoning used by Jeremiah and
Ezekiel cannot be absolutely proved on the basis of probability, since what is most probable is not always
what actually happened. But the best of the various possible combinations make it most likely that
Jeremiah used the fall year and Ezekiel the spring year, although it is almost equally likely that Ezekiel
reckoned from the fall as well as Jeremiah. In either case Ezekiel’s “1st year of the captivity” would begin
in the spring or fall of 597, and Jeremiah’s Ist year of Zedekiah in the fall of that year. (See NOTE) On
this basis the tabulated dates of the events agree remarkably.
NOTE: Some hold that Jeremiah as well as Ezekiel used the spring-beginning year but that Kings, Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah
used the fall year. There is considerable difference of opinion about Jeremiah.
The view that Jeremiah used the fall year encounters objections on three points: an anniversary reckoning for the 23rd year of
his ministry, an inconclusive “this year” extending into the 7th month, and an apparent, but not necessarily actual, misfit with
the date of the battle of Carchemish (see on chapters 25:3; 28:12, 16, 17; 46:2).
Yet a spring reckoning for Jeremiah raises even more serious objections on three points: If he reckoned Zedekiah’s year I from
the spring, 597, half a year earlier than in 2 Kings, the final fall of Jerusalem occurred a whole year earlier (587); this date
requires numbering Nebuchadnezzar’s year 18 as year 19 and assuming either that the news of the city’s fall took 18 months to
reach Ezekiel in Babylon, or, if Ezekiel’s dates are shifted a year earlier, that his vision of the siege was a year early. If
Zedekiah’s year 1 begins in spring, 596, the siege began a year later than according to Kings, unless it is assumed that the
prophet changed to a fall reckoning (chapter 39:1) and then back. Therefore this book attributes a fall year to Jeremiah.
335
Jeremiah 52, an appendix carefully separated from “the words of Jeremiah” (see Jeremiah 51:64), does not necessarily indicate
Jeremiah’s reckoning. Almost word the same as parts of 2 Kings 24-25, it reckons, like Kings, by Judah’s fall year. It counts the
years of Jehoiachin’s captivity inclusively, as would be expected, from 598/97, as the synchronism of the 37th year requires.
Ezekiel, by either spring or fall reckoning, counts Jehoiachin’s captivity from 597/96—non-inclusively if it began with the known
date of his capture, Adar 2, but inclusively if the starting point is his deportation “at the turn of the year” (see on 2 Chronicles
36:10), on or after Nisan 1. One explanation of a non-inclusive count would be the theory, based on archeological finds, that
Jehoiachin was still a king in exile and that to Ezekiel, in Babylon, the “years of the captivity” meant Jehoiachin’s regnal years,
with his year I beginning at the next New Year after his accession.
If Ezekiel, writing in Babylonia, employed the Babylonian calendar year, his use of the spring year would
have no bearing on the question of the Jewish calendar year. But it seems extremely unlikely that
Jeremiah, living and writing in the capital of Judah, should have used anything but the old Jewish civil
fall-to-fall year, especially since it seems to be attested in the case of Josiah, under whom Jeremiah began
his ministry. Some have pointed also to Jeremiah’s writing his messages in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, and
having the scroll read to the people in the 9th month of the 5th year (Jeremiah 36:1-9), as more likely
indicating an interval of two months plus (in the case of the fall year beginning in the 7th month) rather
than nine months plus (as in the case of a spring year beginning with the Ist month). Further, the fall-to-
fall year and the inclusive reckoning not only agree with the synchronisms in Kings, but also best
harmonize Jeremiah’s prophecy of a 70-year captivity with the historical facts for the reigns of
Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, at the beginning and end of that period.
Captivity Ends in the Reign of Cyrus
Mention of the Babylonian captivity as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s 70-year prophecy is followed
immediately by that of Cyrus’ decree of his Ist year in which he encouraged the Jewish exiles to return to
their homeland (see 2 Chronicles 36:21-23). Even before this decree Daniel had been anticipating the end
of the 70 years. When Cyrus, already named in prophecy (Isaiah 44:28; Isaiah 45:1), conquered the
empire that had taken the Jews captive, Daniel knew that the time was near (Daniel 9:1, 2). Before
proceeding to a discussion of the end of the 70-year period, it will be necessary to examine the
chronology of the capture of Babylon by Cyrus and the dating of his reign.
The Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus - Nabonidus, long known from Ptolemy’s Canon as the last king of
the Neo-Babylonian Empire, was conquered by the forces of Cyrus according to several contemporary
accounts. The Cyrus Cylinder tells of the taking of Babylon without a pitched battle and of the immediate
acceptance of his kingship. The Nabonidus Chronicle places the fall of Babylon in the 7th month of
Nabonidus’ 17th year. This date, as reckoned from Nebuchadnezzar’s astronomically fixed 37th year
onward, through the intervening reigns according to Ptolemy’s Canon and the tablets, would be in
October, 539 B.C. Likewise, reckoning back from Cambyses’ 7th year, which is also astronomically fixed,
we find that the Ist year of Cyrus as king of Babylon began in the spring of 538, (See NOTE) the next
Babylonian New Year’s Day after the fall of Babylon. This date, according to both the Canon of Ptolemy
and the contemporary tablets, is accepted today without scholarly dispute as the official Babylonian
reckoning.
NOTE: The year 838 has long been known for Ptolemy as Ist year of Cyrus. This explains why older historians, who did not
know the accession year preceded the Ist year, placed the fall of Babylon in 538. The city fell late in 539, but the first full year of
Cyrus’ control over Babylonia, and thus over the Jews, began in 538.
336
Belshazzar and Darius the Mede - But where do Belshazzar, the last “king of the Chaldeans,” and
Darius the Mede, who took over his kingdom, enter the picture if the reign of Cyrus followed
immediately after that of Nabonidus?
It is now known that Belshazzar’s kingship was not a separate chronological period following that of his
father Nabonidus, but a joint rule in his father’s name. Tablets have been found identifying Belshazzar as
the king’s eldest son, and as his representative during the father’s absence at Tema, in north western
Arabia (from probably the 3rd to at least the 11th year of Nabonidus). The “Persian Verse Account of
Nabonidus” says that Nabonidus “entrusted the kingship” to his eldest son “in the third year.” This is
generally understood to mean in the 3rd regnal year (553/52, spring to spring). However, it has been
suggested that “the third year” refers to the 3rd after the completion of a temple at Haran. Since the text
says that this entrusting of the kingship to the son took place when Nabonidus was about to begin his
conquest of Tema, and since he was in Tema before the 7th regnal year, this could not have been later
than the 6th year (550/49). Thus for some years Belshazzar was an actual king, subordinate in rank but
not in power in the government of Babylonia. Tablets written during his administration are dated in the
years of his father, Nabonidus, the titular ruler of the land. Thus Belshazzar, the son and coregent, as the
second ruler, could appropriately offer to make Daniel “third ruler in the kingdom” (Daniel 5:16, 29).
The chronological scheme allows just as much room for “Darius the Mede”—a name yet unknown in
extra-Biblical contemporary records—as a ruler (See NOTE) as it does for Belshazzar as a ruler, though
there was a day when the latter was unknown, except in the Bible record.
NOTE: “Darius the Mede” (who is mentioned only in Daniel 5:31; 6:1-28; 9:1; 11:1) is not to be confused with any of the three
kings known to history as Darius. These were Darius I, also called Darius the Great, or Darius Hystaspes (522-486); Darius II
(423-405/04); and Darius IIT (336/35-331). “Darius” alone is understood as Darius (I) the Great grandfather of Artaxerxes (so
it is in Ezra 5 and 6, and in Haggai and Zechariah). “Darius the Persian” (see on Nehemiah 12:22) refers to the second of that
name. Various views have been held, on the basis of secular records, identifying Darius the Mede with several characters known
in extra-Biblical history by other names, but until further archeological information is available (as may be the case in the
future), these cannot be considered conclusive.
That a “king” called Darius lived and reigned is not in question. The Bible record is clear. The only point
in question is the relationship of his reign to that of Cyrus. It is evident that he reigned either before Cyrus
or contemporaneously with him. Now the Babylonian records of that time and the Canon of Ptolemy
count Cyrus’ reign as beginning immediately after the last year of Nabonidus. Therefore a reign of Darius
the Mede contemporary with Cyrus would be in harmony with Scripture and secular records.
A further reason for viewing Cyrus as holding supreme power from the time of Babylon’s fall may
reasonably be drawn from the fact that the Bible forecast that he was to be the conqueror of that great city,
and thus of the great empire it represented (see Isaiah 45:1).
When Babylon fell, Darius, “of the seed of the Medes ... was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans”
(Daniel 9:1). Even though Cyrus, the invincible conqueror of Babylon (Isaiah 45:1), was at the same time
listed in the contemporary records as ruler, and had control of the new Persian Empire, it is not
unreasonable to assume that he allowed Darius the Mede certain royal prerogatives for political reasons.
On this assumption we may speak of Cyrus as taking over at the death of Darius the Mede.
337
This commentary, which seeks always to find a harmony between the inspired record and contemporary
historical documents, sets forth the view that no necessary conflict exists between belief in Darius the
Mede as a “king,” and also in Cyrus as a conqueror ruling immediately upon the collapse of Babylon.
The Bible does not say how long Darius the Mede reigned after he “was made king”; it merely mentions
his 1st year (Daniel 9:1; cf. chapter 11:1). By the Babylonian reckoning, the fact that he had a Ist year
would indicate that he ruled at least parts of two years—his accession year and his year 1. The absence of
any further mention of him may mean that he never had a year 2, and that about that time Cyrus himself
took over those royal honors or functions he had formerly allowed to Darius.
Cyrus’ First Year Begins New Empire - It has been explained that the Babylonian sources place the fall
of Babylon late in 539 and year 1 of Cyrus as beginning in the spring of 538. That accounts for the
importance of 538 as marking the Ist year of the new empire, under Persian leadership, that succeeded the
Babylonian. Cyrus had ruled as king for a number of years before he conquered Babylon, first of Anshan,
then of Persia, afterward adding Media (including much of the territory of the former Assyrian Empire),
and Lydia in Asia Minor (see the Nabonidus Chronicle; the Cyrus Cylinder; Herodotus 1.46, 73, 75, 87,
88, 127-130; Strabo xv.3.8; Ctesias, cited in (See NOTE) Diodorus Siculus ii.34.6, 7; Xenophon tells a
different story in his Cyropaedia 1.1.4; 1.5. 2-5; vii.5.37, 58, 70; viti.1.5-11; viii.5.17—19). But when
Cyrus captured Babylon, he immeasurably increased his prestige in becoming master of the mother-city
of ancient Semitic civilization, and thus the 1st year of his control of Babylon was called the 1st year of
his reign. In his proclamation to his Babylonian subjects he proudly styled himself “Cyrus, king of the
universe, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the world quarters.’
Thus Cyrus conquered the Semitic world, and he lacked only Egypt (later to be added by his son) to
round out the great Persian Empire, one that embraced the eastern Mediterranean world and stretched to
the borders of India.
?
NOTE: Diodorus Siculus, translated by C.H. Oldfather and Russel M. Geer, Loeb Classical Library (10 vols.; London, 1923-
1957 [vols. 8 and 12 forthcoming]
The short-lived Neo-Babylonian Empire, flowering briefly in the glories of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden city,
was the first of Daniel’s series of four world powers, but also the last phase of ancient Semitic domination.
Now the second of Daniel’s series, Cyrus’ new Persian Empire, marked the passing of leadership to the
Indo-European peoples, who later, through the Greeks and Romans, were to develop the civilization that
gave Europe its long dominant position.
Cyrus’ First Year in Relation to the Jews - According to Scripture statements Cyrus’ decree permitting
the Jewish exiles to return to Judea was issued in his first year (2 Chronicles 36:22; Ezra 1:1; Ezra 5:13).
Since the fall of Babylon took place in Tishri (the 7th month) of 539, the year 1 of Cyrus began, by the
reckoning of the Babylonian tablets, in the spring of 538. But the Jews reckoned differently; their civil
years began in the autumn. The city fell after the Jewish New Year’s Day had passed. Hence the first
Jewish year of the new regime could not have begun before the next Jewish New Year, Tishri 1, in the
autumn of 538. By Jewish reckoning the decree might have been promulgated late in 537. It was
necessarily issued some considerable time before the actual migration. If the decree was given in 537, and
the journey of the exiles followed in the spring of 536, this would fulfill the 70 years of Jeremiah. A
repatriation in the Jewish fall-to-fall year 537/36 would still be 70 years, inclusive, from the beginning of
the Exile in the late summer of 605 (in the Jewish year 606/05).
338
The available information enables us to establish the 70 years as extending from about the time of the
beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign to somewhere near the beginning of Cyrus’ reign, but the exact B.C.
dates are difficult to fix. More than one explanation has been offered in regard to the end of the period,
the difference in method depending on the interpretation of the data concerning Cyrus and Darius the
Mede. (See NOTE) The dates for the captivity are not pivotal points as are the dates involved in the time
prophecies of Daniel; hence are not matters of doctrine. A detailed, long-term prophecy like the 70 weeks,
on the other hand, is on an entirely different basis.
NOTE: The following explanations of the 70 years show various interpretations that have been set forth.
The first, based on data from the contemporary documents from Babylonia, offers satisfactory harmony between these sources
and the Scripture; “the first year of Cyrus” was the Jewish civil year following that in which he took Babylon, the decree could
have been issued as late as the autumn of 537. This would be in the early part of the year 2 by Babylonian reckoning, but still in
year I by the Jewish fall-to-fall year. The decree was evidently issued in Ecbatana, for it was on file there some years later (Ezra
6:2, margin). That Cyrus was in Ecbatana in or preceding September, 537, seems to be indicated by a tablet in the archives of
the Babylonian banking firm of “Egibi and Sons.” If the decree was issued about that time, it is highly improbable that the
returning exiles could have set out before the spring of 536. Such a large group of travelers would require considerable time
after the receipt of the decree in order to make the necessary preparations for the migration. One would also expect the four-
month journey (see Ezra 7:8) so that the people could be settled in new homes in the once-ruined towns before the autumn rains
began. That they were so settled before they gathered to Jerusalem in the end of the 6th month to celebrate the Jewish New Year
on the Ist of the 7th month is evident from Ezra 2:70; 3:1-6. The foregoing explanation places the return in 536, in the spring
following the edict of Cyrus. This is not out of harmony with the Bible dating of the decree in the Ist year of the reign, for the
return, which followed the decree, is not dated. (In Ezra 7, on the other hand, Artaxerxes’ decree is undated, but the journey is
definitely placed in the 7th year.) This explanation requires no juggling of the reigns at either end of the period. It is the basis for
the comments on Ezra 1:1.
Many earlier writers began the 70 years with 606 as the supposed 4th year of Jehoiakim, and ended it 70 full years later by
assigning the first two years of the new regime in Babylonia to a two-year reign of Darius the Mede, beginning the first year of
Cyrus in 536 instead of 538. But there is no mention of a year 2 for Darius the Mede in the Bible, the only source for his reign.
A more recent modification of this view seeks to end the 70 years, inclusively reckoned, in the Ist year of Cyrus by allowing
Darius the Mede an accession year and a year I preceding Cyrus:
First attack on Jerusalem 605 B.C.
Fall of Babylon 539 B.C.
Accession year of Darius the Mede (when Daniel prayed, realizing that the 70 years of | 539/38 B.C.
Jeremiah's prophecy were about to end)
Year 1 of Darius the Mede (in which he presumably died) 538/37 B.C.
Accession year of Cyrus (as supposed counted by those who did not recognize his reign | 538/37 B.C.
until Darius died)
Decree of Cyrus and return of the Jews (in the Ist year of Cyrus so reckoned, but in the | 537/36 B.C.
2nd Jewish year as counted from the fall of Babylon)
This scheme, which puts the return in the summer of 536, within the latter half of the fall-to-fall year 537/36, would not be
incompatible with the Bible record. Such a numbering of the years of Cyrus seems to be at variance with all the known
339
contemporary dated documents, for the numerous extant tablets make no reference to Darius the Mede, and are dated in every
year of Cyrus from his accession year through year 9. If Cyrus’ year 1 was 537/36 instead of the generally accepted 538/37, he
could have had only 8 Babylonian years of reign before the 1st of Cambyses (whose 7th year is fixed astronomically) or 7 years
by Jewish fall-to-fall reckoning. This scheme would have to be based on the assumption that Daniel presents a Jewish reckoning
of Cyrus’ years different from anything known in Babylonian records at the present time.
Those who choose to begin the 70 years with 4th year of Jehoiakim, in which Jeremiah made the prediction first, may consider
that the captives were taken in the campaign of the 3rd year of Jehoiakim yet did not arrive in Babylonia until the beginning of
the 4th year, after the autumn Jewish New Year, but still in 605 B.C. Thus 605-536 B.C. is still 70 years by inclusive reckoning,
although it would throw the beginning of the 70th year into the 7th month, in the autumn of 536.
Some have pointed out that there are 70 full years between 586 and 516, but the captivity was ended long before the completion
of the Temple, which was in the spring of 515.
Some end the 70 years in 538, the first year after the fall of Babylon to Cyrus, and go back 70 full years, thus arriving at 608.
They observe that Judah, after the death of Josiah, became a pawn in the hands of foreign or the setting up of Jehoiakim as a
puppet of Egypt does not fulfill the specifications of a 70-year servitude to Babylon (2 Chronicles 36:20, 21; Jeremiah 25:1-11;
29:1-10). Jehoiakim was put on the throne in 609, but there is no indication of Babylonian intervention until 605.
Some regard the 70 years as a round number, since the beginning date is not given.
It is to be hoped that just as archeology has cleared up the once-puzzling problem of Belshazzar, for
instance, it will someday throw more light on Darius the Mede, the reign of Cyrus, and the end of the 70
years of Jeremiah.
Two other 70-year periods will be explained in the following section of this chapter.
The Period of the Rebuilding of the Temple
Building Program Begun - Under Cyrus’ decree Zerubbabel, a prince of Judah, led 42,360 exiles to their
homeland (see Ezra 1, 2). Then Zerubbabel’s pioneers gathered at Jerusalem, and on the Ist of the 7th
month reinstituted the sacrificial services on the rebuilt altar in the court of the ruined Temple (Ezra 3:1-
6). Not until the following spring, in the 2nd month of the 2nd year of their return (verse 8), did they
begin to lay the foundation of their new sanctuary, and the painful contrast between the present small
beginning and the past glory made the old men weep while the multitude shouted for joy.
Hindrances Until the Reign of Darius I - Then, says Ezra, the adversaries of the Jews in the half-pagan
province of Samaria (see on 2 Kings 17:23, 34; Ezra 4:2; 9:1) offered first help and then hindrance. They
“hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until
the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezra 4:5). The sequence of Ezra 4 is debated, but the order of these
kings has no bearing on any definite dates or on the fact that the reconstruction of the Temple “ceased
unto the second year of the reign of Darius” (Ezra 4:24). This 2nd year of Darius I was 520/19 B.C.
Construction Resumed in Reign of Darius - After the long period of discouragement, during which the
building program had ceased, the flagging zeal of the returned exiles was renewed by messages from the
prophets Haggai and Zechariah in the 2nd year of Darius (Ezra 5:1, 2). They set to work on the Temple
again, whereupon Tatnai, the governor of the province of “Beyond the River,” of which Judea was a part,
asked for their authorization for the construction. Their claim to having authorization was verified by the
340
finding of Cyrus’ decree in Ecbatana (Ezra 6:2, margin). Darius, who was himself a monotheist and an
imitator of the liberal policies of Cyrus, offered financial aid.
The Temple Finished Under Three Decrees - Then with opposition effectively removed, and with the
enthusiastic leadership of the prophets, “they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of
the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign
of Darius the king” (Ezra 6:14, 15), or approximately March 12, 515 B.C. Thus the actual building was
finished in the reign of the second of the three kings mentioned in this text as issuing decrees in relation to
the Temple—the edicts of Cyrus (about 537), Darius 1 (sometime after 520), and Artaxerxes I (458/57)—
but further work was done on the Temple under the third decree, that of Artaxerxes (see on Ezra 6:14 and
7:27).
Ezra’s account of the resumption of the Temple construction in the 2nd year of Darius mentions the
prophets Haggai and Zechariah, whose books furnish several additional specific dates in this period that
must be discussed next.
The Chronology of Haggai and Zechariah - The seven dates in the books of Haggai and Zechariah will
be considered together, since all but one of them fell in the 2nd year of Darius I, and since the two
prophets, being contemporaries and colleagues, presumably used the same calendar. These dates are
specific; and only two of them are uncertain, because of difference of opinion as to whether the 2nd year
of Darius is to be reckoned in the Babylonian-Persian spring-to-spring calendar or by the Jewish fall-to-
fall civil calendar. Since Darius reckoned his accession from the autumn of 522, his Babylonian year 1
began in the spring of 521, at the Babylonian New Year’s Day, and his year 2 began in the spring of 520.
But his accession year in the Jewish fall-to-fall civil calendar would end, and his 1st year begin, in the
autumn of 521, when the next Jewish New Year’s Day came; and his 2nd year would begin in the autumn
of 520. Darius’ years always began a half-year later by the Jewish calendar.
Since the Babylonian year was reckoned by months 1 through 12, while the Jewish year began with the
7th month and ended with the 6th, the order of months in any specified year indicates which type it was.
If the events described in Haggai are presented by him in chronological order, then the 6th month was
followed by the 7th in Darius’ 2nd year (Haggai 1:15; 2:1); and this would indicate that Haggai was
reckoning that year as consisting of months 1 through 12, beginning with the Ist month (Nisan), in the
spring. This has been assumed by commentators and historians generally, not only because it is the order
of the narrative, but because that was the reckoning used in Babylonia.
It is well established that the 2nd year of Darius was 520/19 B.C., by either spring or fall reckoning. Then
the lunar-month dates of Haggai and Zechariah, with the exception of the first two (Haggai 1:1, 15), can
be assigned B.C. equivalents with certainty, for they fall in the half year in which the fall and spring years
overlap.
NOTE: The official dating of the years of Darius I is well established by Ptolemy’s Canon and tow eclipse records, as well as the
Saros Tablets. It is similarly anchored to the astronomically fixed 7th year of Cambyses by Darius ’statement in his Behistun
inscription that the false Bardiya (Smerdis) revolted in Media in the last month of the 7th year of Cambyses, seized the throne in
the 8th year (the summer of 522 B.C.), and was defeated and killed by Darius on the 10th of the 7th month, in the autumn of the
same year. From this date Darius counted his accession year, which lasted, by the Babylonian-Persian calendar, until the
following spring, when his year 1 began on Nisan 1, 521. One modern authority, A. T. Olmstead, formerly interpreted the tablet
341
evidence as indicating that Darius falsified the official record, and that his reign actually began two years later than the autumn
of 522 B.C., but this view did not prevail, and Olmstead himself later abandoned it. Hence there is no reason to reject the
accepted dating of Darius I’s 2nd year.
The opinion has also been put forth that Haggai and Zechariah were counting the years of Darius I by the old Judah fall--to-fall
civil calendar year on the assumption that the chapters of Haggai are, like some other Bible passages, not presented in
chronological order, and that the messages of Haggai in the 6th month (chapters 1:1 and 1:15) came after the messages of
chapter 2, that is, in 519 instead of 520. However, there is no proof for this, and the sequence of events seems to be more
reasonable if chapters 1 and 2 are regarded as being in consecutive order. If, as has been suggested, the dates involved in one of
Zechariah’s 70-year periods imply that he reckoned by the fall-to-fall year, this would strengthen the possibility that Haggai, his
colleague and contemporary, did the same. But there can be no dogmatic conclusion drawn in this matter. Zechariah’s three
regnal dates (Zechariah 1:1, 7; 7:1), when taken alone, can be interpreted either way.
The dates are listed here in the order in which they occur in Haggai, with those of Zechariah inserted in
place. The B.C. equivalents, probably correct approximately to the day, except for the first two, are added
in the last column:
Haggai 1:1 6 1 2nd of Darius | [Aug 29, 520?]
1:15 6 24 % [Sept 21, 520?]
2:1 7 21 . Oct 17, 520
Zechariah | 1:1 8 . Oct/Nov 520
Haggai 2:10,18,20 | 9 24 Dec 18, 520
Zechariah | 1:7 11 24 ‘ Feb 15, 519
71 9 4 4th of Darius | Dec 7,518
Zechariah’s Seventy-Year Periods - It has been noted that, in addition to Jeremiah’s prediction of the
captivity, there were two other 70-year periods related to the Exile, both mentioned in retrospect. These
were the 70 years of “indignation” against Judah and Jerusalem and the 70 years of the fast of the fifth
month (in commemoration of the destruction of the Temple), in two messages of Zechariah dated
respectively in the 2nd and 4th years of Darius (Zechariah 1:7, 12; 7:1, 3-5), or 520/19 and 518/17 B.C. If
these were the 70th year of each period, the Ist year of each was, respectively, 589/88 and 587/86. Now,
two events appropriate to these periods are the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar,
assigned on the best evidence to 589/88 B.C., and the destruction of the Temple (in the 5th month) in the
summer of 586 (that is, 587/86, fall to fall). Thus these two periods may be understood as accurate time
statements of 70 years, inclusive. Some explain these as referring to the 70 years of Jeremiah. But they
have every appearance of being separate.
342
The Chronology of Esther, in the Reign of Xerxes
The identification of the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther with Xerxes is generally accepted today, since
the spelling of his name in the Hebrew (Achashwerosh) is similar to that appearing in contemporary
documents (see on Esther 1:1). The reign of Xerxes is known, not only from Ptolemy’s Canon, but also
from a double-dated Elephantine papyrus. Hence the chronology of Esther presents no problems. The
months, which attest the postexilic Jewish form of the Babylonian month names, do not by their sequence
determine whether the regnal years were counted from spring or fall, since the year number is not
mentioned in connection with the later events. Since all the action takes place in the Persian capital, the
dates are probably Persian, and hence have no bearing on the Jewish calendar.
Dating the Journeys of Ezra and Nehemiah
After the initial resettlement in the reign of Cyrus, the next two milestones in the repatriation of the Jews
were the arrival of Ezra with another company of exiles under a decree of Artaxerxes (important for the
period of the 70 weeks) in the 7th year of that king and the coming of Nehemiah in the 20th year. The
chronology of these two events depends on determining (1) which of three kings named Artaxerxes
(Artaxerxes I, 465-423; Artaxerxes II, 404—359/58; Artaxerxes III, 359/58—338/37) commissioned these
two Jewish leaders, and (2) the exact regnal-year dating involved.
The Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah - It was formerly taken for granted that the king whose 7th and
20th years are the key Biblical dates of this period was Artaxerxes I, son and successor of Xerxes, but
since 1890 the opinion has been advanced, and increasingly accepted, that Ezra is to be dated in the time
of Artaxerxes II. However, Nehemiah’s connection with the first Artaxerxes is regarded as established,
since one of the Elephantine papyri, dated 407 B.C., mentions the sons of Sanballat.
If, then, the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was Artaxerxes I, the narrative of Ezra-Nehemiah unquestionably
places Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem in the 7th year of the same king, 13 years before Nehemiah’s. Both
were recognized leaders of the community in the ceremony of the dedication of the walls (Nehemiah
12:36, 38). Furthermore, the reading of the law on New Year’s Day, the Ist of the 7th month (Nehemiah
8:1-6, 9), could hardly have happened many years before Ezra was sent to Jerusalem (Ezra 7) with full
authority to establish the civil and religious administration in Judea and to teach the law of God in Israel
(for a discussion of the relative dating of Ezra and Nehemiah. Therefore we may accept the Biblical order
and place the return of Ezra in the reign of Artaxerxes I.
The Circumstances of Artaxerxes I’s Accession - Since both Ezra and Nehemiah are dated by the
chronology of Artaxerxes I, the source materials for this dating must be examined. A few historians have
counted a short reign between Xerxes and Artaxerxes because the Egyptian king list of Manetho, and two
early Christian chronographers who followed him, assigned seven months to Artabanus, the murderer of
Xerxes. However the ancient Greek historians, while varying on the details, present Artaxerxes as the
actual king but a puppet in the hands of Artabanus, the real power behind the throne, until he learned that
Artabanus had murdered his father Xerxes and, indirectly, his older brother, and also was planning to do
away with him as well and ascend the throne openly. Thereupon Artaxerxes slew Artabanus and took
over the kingdom. There was, until recently, a gap in the archeological evidence for this regnal transition.
343
In the series of commercial tablets from that period there are none dated in Xerxes’ last (21st) year or
Artaxerxes’ accession year, and none even mentioning Artabanus.
The Years of Artaxerxes I Dated by Contemporary Documents - The years of Artaxerxes’ reign
according to Ptolemy’s Canon have long been known. In recent years this dating has been confirmed by
eight double-dated Aramaic papyri written in a Jewish colony in Egypt in eight different years of that
reign. Thus Artaxerxes’ year | in the Egyptian calendar was, without doubt, that beginning on Thoth 1
(December 17), 465 B.C. One of these papyri, written January 2/3, 464, is dated in (Xerxes’) “year 21,
accession year when King Artaxerxes sat on his throne.” The Jewish scribe who wrote that was for some
reason reluctant to abandon Xerxes’ regnal years and date in Artaxerxes’ name alone, even though if
Artaxerxes was king, Xerxes was certainly dead. (See NOTE) He was not dating in an Egyptian year; the
Egyptian year 21 had ended, and this was now year 1—for so the Egyptians called the remainder of the
calendar year in which a new king came in. Evidently this Jewish scribe was using his own calendar. The
Jewish regnal reckoning was by a fall-to-fall year; therefore if a January 3 date was still in Artaxerxes’
accession year, his year | began at the next Jewish New Year, in the fall of 464.
NOTE: For the date of his death there is no contemporary evidence, but if an unpublished Hellenistic tablet (some 150 or more
years later) is correct, it was in August, 465 (A. J. Sachs, LBART No. 1419, cited in Parker and Dubberstein, Babylonian
Chronology, 1956 ed., p. 17). He was dead before January 3, 464, according to this contemporary double-dated papyrus,
designated as AP 6 (A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., No. 6). It has been suggested that this unusual
dating in two reigns may reflect the uncertain status of Artaxerxes while Artabanus was in power (Andrews University Seminary
Studies, VI [1968], pp. 60-87; see also Horn and Wood, the Chronology of Ezra 7, 2nd ed., rev., Washington: Review and Herald,
1970).
Locating the Seventh and Twentieth Years - According to these three calendars the Ist year of
Artaxerxes, and the years 7 and 20 as well, can be tabulated:
By the Egyptian calendar (Dec-Dec) 465/64 459/58 446/45
By the Babylonian-Persian (spring-spring) 464/63 458/57 445/44
By the Jewish civil calendar (fall-fall) 464/63 458/57 445/44
There is no reason to suppose that the Bible writers would have used the Egyptian calendar. The B.C.
dating of the journeys of Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem hinges on whether, by Biblical reckoning,
Artaxerxes’ 7th and 20th years began with the Ist month, in spring, or with the 7th month, six months
later.
The Journeys of Ezra and Nehemiah - The dates of Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s journeys, in terms of
Artaxerxes’ regnal years, are given as follows:
7 1 1 Ezra and party set out for Judea Ezra 7:9
344
7 1 12 Ezra and party leave Ahava Ezra 8:31
7 5 1 Ezra and party arrive at Jerusalem Ezra 7:8,9
20 [9] (Kislev) | Nehemiah receives news from Judea Nehemiah 1:1
20 [1] (Nisan) | Nehemiah gains permission to leave Nehemiah 2:1
Ezra arrived at Jerusalem in the summer of Artaxerxes’ 7th regnal year, and Nehemiah in the same season
of the 20th year (see on Ezra 7:8; Nehemiah 6:15). Now the Babylonian-Persian 7th year began with the
spring of 458 B.C. and ended in the spring of 457, thus covering the summer of 458; but the Jewish fall-
to-fall 7th year, extending from the fall of 458 to the fall of 457, covered the summer of 457. If Ezra
reached Jerusalem in the Babylonian-Persian 7th year, he obviously traveled in 458. On the other hand, if
he arrived in the summer of the Jewish fall-to-fall 7th year, which did not end until the autumn of 457, he
traveled in 457. There is evidence for the fall-to-fall year in various periods of Hebrew history; also in the
very book of Ezra—Nehemiah itself, for the two dates of Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1 show that Kislev (the 9th
month) preceded Nisan (the 1st month) in the same 20th year. Since regnal years were then customarily
calendar years, and since that year could not have begun with the 1st month, the obvious and inescapable
inference is that it was a Jewish calendar year beginning with the 7th month, that is, in the autumn.
Therefore it would seem logical to assume without further question that Ezra went to Jerusalem in 457
and Nehemiah in 444, in the 7th and 20th years, respectively, of Artaxerxes I as reckoned by the Jewish
civil calendar. But opinion has varied on this question, as will be seen in the next paragraph.
Changes in Dating of Artaxerxes - Although many earlier authorities placed Ezra’s return in 457,
modern histories and reference books tend to give 458 for the 7th year of Artaxerxes, arrived at by the
spring-to-spring reckoning. (See NOTE) This is based on the assumption either (1) that the regnal dates of
Artaxerxes, as a Persian king, must be reckoned by the Babylonian-Persian calendar, or (2) that the Jews
themselves at this time counted regnal years from spring to spring. In either case the fall reckoning of
Nehemiah is considered erroneous, and his Nisan events following Kislev of year 20 must be “corrected”
to Nisan of year 21. But neither assumption is valid. The Elephantine papyri disprove the first and lend no
support to the second. These papyri, the only direct archeological evidence for Jewish usage, have been
interpreted by some (especially in the United States) as supporting the spring-to-spring reckoning, but the
most recently published group of Elephantine papyri contains the first conclusive evidence on that
question. How this evidence proves a Jewish fall-to-fall year will be explained in the following section of
this chapter, but the conclusion may be stated here.
NOTE: The earlier writers, some of whom gave 458 and others 457, arrived at their dates by various methods, but there was no
adequate basis for the chronology before the discovery of ancient sources like the Babylonian tablets and the Elephantine papyri.
Some earlier scholars thought that Artaxerxes’s Persian years were the same as Ptolemy’s Egyptian years, and thus placed the
summer of the 7th and 20th years in 458 and 445 B.C. Some made a mistake of one year in calculating the Egyptian New Year’s
Day in its backward shift of a day in four years, and thus began Artaxerxes’ Ist year, by the canon, in December, 464, instead of
December, 465, consequently placing the whole reign one year late. Others, like Isaac Newton, arrived at the correct dating by
two mistaken assumption, each of which canceled out the other: Newton thought Artaxerxes came to the throne only in the latter
half of 464, after a supposed reign of some months by Artabanus; and he assumed that the Ist year began on the day of
accession—both incorrect assumptions. Thus some of the earlier datings for 9 or 10 years by pure conjecture; all were untenable
because based on erroneous premises. Nearly all later authorities, using the newer knowledge of the spring-beginning
345
Babylonian-Persian year and the accession-year system, have assigned these Ezra and Nehemiah dates to 458 and 445
respectively. That is why newer histories give 458 and 445 (some of them use 444, because they “correct” the date of
Nehemiah’s journey to the 21st year of the reign). However, in thus doing they have ignored the possibility that the Jews might be
expected to use their own fall-to-fall reckoning rather than the Babylonian spring year.
Dates of Ezra and Nehemiah Established - In the light of the evidence for Jewish fall-to-fall reckoning
of the year, there is no reason whatever to “correct” Nehemiah’s Nisan date from the 20th to the 21st year.
The logical and reasonable explanation of Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1 is that they indicate the Jewish fall-to-
fall year, in which months 7—12 precede months 1-6 of the same year. Therefore the journeys of Ezra and
Nehemiah to Jerusalem in the 7th and 20th years of Artaxerxes I are to be dated according to the Jewish
fall-to-fall calendar (in which the 7th and 20th years were 458/57 and 445/44), and thus in the spring and
summer of 457 and 444 B.C. respectively.
The conclusions concerning the dating of Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s journeys—long a much-confused
subject—may be summarized as follows:
(1) Most modern writers, using the Egyptian year of Ptolemy’s Canon or, later, the Babylonian-Persian
spring-to-spring year, have placed Ezra’s journey in 458 B.C., since the 7th year by either of these
calendar systems (459/58 and 458/57 respectively) includes the spring and summer of 458, but ends
before the month of Nisan in 457. (See NOTE) According to this the journey of Nehemiah would have
occurred in 445, although many of those who assign Ezra’s expedition to 458 place that of Nehemiah in
444, on the assumption that the latter returned in the 21st year instead of the 20th.
NOTE: Some earlier writers placed Ezra’s return in 457 B.C. (and Nehemiah’s in 444) on the basis that “the 7th year of
Artaxerxes is 457 B.C. according to Ptolemy’s Canon.” Actually the 7th year according to Ptolemy’s Canon is 459/58, though
458/57 might be spoken of as the 7th year as derived from Ptolemy’s Canon and the source documents, since the relationship of
the Egyptian year to the Persian spring year and the Jewish fall year is involved.
(2) In the Jewish civil-calendar reckoning the 7th year of Artaxerxes was 458/57, fall to fall, according to
the more exact evidence as we have it now from the Babylonian tablets and the Jewish papyri from Egypt.
This places Ezra’s return in the summer of 457 B.C. and Nehemiah’s in the 20th year in 444.
Since the evidence from the Bible and from archeology favors the fall reckoning, as in paragraph (2), the
dates 457 and 444 may be taken as established.
The Elephantine Papyri and the Jewish Calendar
In showing that the dating of the journeys of Ezra and Nehemiah hinges on the spring versus the fall year,
it has been stated that Jewish papyri from Elephantine, formerly inconclusive on this point, now furnish
evidence for the fall-to-fall reckoning. For those who wish to examine the reasons why the papyri are
important to the decision in favor of the fall-to-fall reckoning in Ezra—Nehemiah, the following brief
survey of the evidence furnished by the papyri and of its bearing on the Biblical reckoning is provided.
Spring Year or Fall Year in Elephantine? - The double-dated Elephantine papyri were drawn up in a
Jewish community under the Egyptian legal system; hence the Egyptian year number was customarily
given, but the Semitic lunar-year number was often omitted.
346
In the period of these papyri the Babylonian spring year began about four months later than the
corresponding Egyptian solar year, and the Jewish fall-to-fall year six months later than the Babylonian.
The Egyptian year 4, for example, of any of these reigns ran about 4 months before the Babylonian year 3
ended and year 4 began, but it would run an additional 6 months before the Jewish year number changed
from 3 to 4.
Early Years of Artaxerxes |
~ "hrishr [ Jewssh reckoning .
| 465B.C. 464B.C, 4638C. 462BC. 461 BC. 460 B.C. 459 B.C. 458 B.C.
Fall to Fall
Jewish Reckoning
Demonstrated
I | | I
423 B.C. 422 BC. BC | SHBCR | AIP BC
424 B.C.
| Artaxerxes!) || Darius I Year2 | Year 3 Darius Il
eel he a a2 Se be hs | ==
Artaxerxes | Year 3 Year 4 Darius It
@ Darius ll Accession
#* =Tammuz 8 in 421 and 420 B.C.
@ =Pharmuthi 8 in 421 and 420 B.C.
On such a basis a series of complete double dates would show, by the Egyptian month in which the
Semitic lunar-year numbers changed, whether the writers of these papyri reckoned the lunar dates from a
spring or a fall New Year. But most papyri gave only one year number, even during that part of the year
347
when two would be expected in a complete double date. Heretofore all the known double-dated papyri
were inconclusive (See NOTE) until a papyrus was found with a date line of a kind that could have been
reckoned only by a spring-to-spring year or only by a fall-to-fall year.
NOTE: Some of them came from that portion of the year when the regnal number was the same in both spring and fall reckonings,
and hence could have been dated in either system. Others appeared to require a spring-to-spring year because of the absence of
a differing number, but they too were inconclusive, since some of the papyri that bore only the Egyptian year number were
actually written in a part of the year when the two differing year numbers would be expected. The absence of a second year
number is not proof that both were the same.
New Papyrus Proves Fall Reckoning - Finally one such document was found, No. 6 of the Brooklyn
Museum Papyri, published by Emil G. Kraeling in 1953. It is a deed to (part of?) a house in Elephantine
presented to a prospective Jewish bride. It bears only one year number, the 3rd year of Darius (ID), but the
month and day of the Egyptian calendar agree with those of the lunar calendar only in July, 420 B.C. This
harmony is not possible in either the Egyptian year 3 (beginning in December, 422) or the Babylonian-
Persian year 3 (beginning in the spring of 421), but only with the fall-to-fall year of the Jewish civil
calendar, which began in the autumn of 421 and so included July, 420. Therefore the lunar calendar in
which this papyrus was dated was not the Babylonian but the Jewish civil calendar, with the year
beginning in the autumn. Consequently the other papyri, inconclusive in themselves, should be
interpreted in the light of this one. Obviously the Jews in Elephantine must, like Nehemiah, have used the
old fall-to-fall civil calendar.
The editor and translator of Papyrus 6 mentions the fact that the date will not fit into the 3rd year of the
reign according to the Egyptian and Persian reckoning, and notes the fall-to-fall year as one conclusion,
(See NOTE 1)but he himself accepts the alternative of conjecturing a scribe’s error. There are only two
alternatives. If this clearly written date is correct, the year began in the autumn, (See NOTE 2) and
Nehemiah’s usage is unquestioned. The only reason for supposing that the papyrus date is an error is the
fact that it does not agree with the current widespread scholarly opinion that the Jews adopted not only the
Babylonian month names but the Babylonian calendar outright, including the spring New Year.
NOTE: This view that the Jews used the spring year (and hence that Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1 are in error) appears to be connected
with the higher-critical application of the “law” of evolution to the supposed gradual development of the Jewish religion toward
a lofty monotheism. By this theory most of the “Mosaic” law, including the Passover and the fixing of the first month in the
spring, was not a rediscovery but an innovation at the time of the reform of Josiah. This explains the phenomenon of the critical-
scholarly reluctance in some quarters to admit a postexilic Jewish fall-to-fall year, also the tendency to interpret the inconclusive
dates of the earlier Elephantine papyri as evidence for the spring year and to brush aside this new papyrus as a scribal error
with hardly a thought of an alternative interpretation. Biblical scholars, like their fellow mortals, can be influenced by their
theories, and contrary evidence often proves hard to accept. Of course such an explanation can have little weight in a
commentary whose editors, contributors, and readers accept the high ethical monotheism of the “Deuteronomic code” as a
revelation from God at the time of the Exodus, not a product of the “evolving” Jewish mind.
NOTE 1: Set forth by S. H. Horn and L. H. Wood, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, XIII (1954), pp. 1-20.
NOTE 2: The fact that Papyrus 6 was written only a few months before the end of year 3 seems to be corroborated by Papyrus 7,
the very interesting marriage contract of the same girl, dated evidently the next Tishri (approximately October). Since Papyrus 6
is proved to have been dated in the fall-to-fall calendar, it would be expected that No. 7 would show a change in the year
number—for Tishri would be in year 4 by the Jewish calendar (as well as by the Egyptian and Persian). Although the papyrus is
broken, leaving the year numeral incomplete, its reconstruction to year 4 is rather certain. Being written in the same year 4
according to all three calendars, No. 7 does not prove which reckoning was used, but it confirms the evidence of Papyrus 6 for
the fall-to-fall year.
348
But not one who wishes to give all the Bible writers a hearing and to discovery what they mean, without
impatiently assuming that the “late editors” misunderstood the earlier writers and that the supposed errors
of Scripture must be corrected by theory and conjecture, is gratified to find that it is not necessary to
abandon Moses, to ignore Josiah and Jeremiah, and to assume that Nehemiah was wrong. The Jewish
calendar need not agree with the Babylonian.
Significance of the Elephantine Jewish Calendar - Were these Jews in Egypt employing the Persian
calendar or the same Jewish calendar they had used in Palestine? If these colonists, on coming into Egypt
(before 525 B.C.), had adopted a foreign calendar it would have been the Egyptian solar calendar, not a
Babylonian-Persian system, for Egypt had not at that time been made part of the Persian Empire. They
would not have used double dating, since some of these papyri, as well as the demotic Egyptian texts
from other parts of the country, carry only the Egyptian date. Therefore the double dates show that they
retained their old calendar along with that of the Egyptians.
Thus it is evident that a Persian king’s years need not be reckoned by the Babylonian-Persian calendar,
but are more likely to be reckoned in the national or ancestral calendar of the writer. That is exactly what
we find in the only conclusive dating among these Elephantine papyri. Just as these colonists considered
themselves separate from the Egyptians to the extent of retaining their own calendar, they seem to have
considered themselves akin to their repatriated brethren in Palestine, as their correspondence shows.
Hence their use of the fall-to-fall year, even considered apart from the Ezra-Nehemiah evidence, would
lead to the conclusion that they were in accord with Palestinian custom in this.
An advocate of the theory of the late date of the Pentateuch, and of the introduction of the spring year by
Josiah, is likely to see the supposed spring reckoning in the formerly inconclusive papyri as part of a
chain of postexilic evidences for the spring usage from Josiah on. In this he would include Ezekiel,
Haggai and Zechariah, Esther, and even Nehemiah (for he tends to brand as erroneous the fall-to-fall
sequence in Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1). But actually there is no continuous chain of evidence for the spring
reckoning. Jeremiah almost certainly used a fall year; Ezekiel probably did also, and even if he did not,
his book and Esther are irrelevant to the problem because they were written during the Exile, in Babylonia
and Persia. Haggai’s usage is less than proof for the spring reckoning, (See NOTE) and there is the
possibility of Zechariah’s fall reckoning. The links in this chain tend to fall apart, leaving the supposed
spring year of the papyri unsupported, and Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1 unchallenged.
NOTE: Even if the spring-to-spring year be insisted on for the time of Haggai and Zechariah because of the order of Haggai’s
dates, it should be remembered that there is a great difference between the conditions of that period, when national
consciousness had long been at a low ebb, and the situation of the restored Jewish community in Judea 70 years later, in the time
of Ezra and Nehemiah, with the Temple rebuilt, the civil and religious administration reorganized under the “law of God,” and
finally the capital fortified. Along with the new emphasis on the national law, on the elimination of foreign influences and foreign
languages, and on the observance of the national festivals, the old national calendar reckoning of Judah would naturally be
restored, if indeed it had not been in use all along; for the community of repatriated Jews, founded by the Davidic prince
Zerubbabel and the Levitical priesthood, was a continuation of the nation of Judah. Thus the use of the old Jewish civil fall-to-
fall calendar was to be expected.
Now the proof of Jewish fall-to-fall reckoning in the Elephantine papyri changes the picture radically.
Anyone not preoccupied with the theory of the spring-beginning year can find the postexilic data
reasonably consistent in indicating that the fall-beginning year was not abandoned. Thus the Elephantine
calendar becomes a link in the long chain of evidence for the fall-to-fall reckoning extending from the
349
civil year of ancient times to Ezra-Nehemiah, including Solomon, Josiah, the corroborative though
indirect evidence for Judah’s kings from the synchronisms, and Jeremiah, possibly the usage of Ezekiel
and Zechariah. The fall-to-fall year in Elephantine thus confirms unequivocally the usage of Ezra—
Nehemiah, and therefore the accuracy of the chronological data of the Bible writers of this period.
The Postexilic Jewish Calendar in Egypt - The double-dated papyri furnish considerable information
about the Jewish calendar as used at Elephantine. They also fix a number of exact dates, accurate to
within a day. Since the Egyptian day began at sunrise, and the Jewish at sunset, there could be a
difference of opinion in some cases as to whether a specific Egyptian day is to be aligned with the Jewish
day beginning 12 hours earlier or that beginning 12 hours later (depending on whether the document was
written before or after sunset). Where a papyrus date establishes a given day of the month in this manner,
the whole month is similarly fixed, and the other months of that year are also known virtually to the day.
It is to be remembered that an ancient lunar month cannot be fixed with complete certainty, because of the
possible variation of a day or so each way. But within these limits there are a number of these completely
known years in this Jewish calendar during the 5th century, and the other years of the period can be
approximated with a relatively high degree of precision, allowing leeway for the exact location of some of
the 13th months.
Tentative Reconstruction of Elephantine Jewish Calendar - A calendar reconstructed around the
fourteen known months fixed by the double-dated papyri gives a very close approximation of the B.C.
date of the Ist of each month for the Jewish years from 472/71 through 400/399 B.C. Such a tabulation
has been computed by Siegfried H. Horn and Lynn H. Wood on the following premises:
1. The year begins with Tishri 1, in the autumn.
2. The 1st of each month is computed theoretically, but based on a reasonable interval after conjunction,
so as to keep as close as possible to the observed crescent.
3. These computed months are derived from the working hypothesis of a regularly alternating sequence of
30-day and 29-day months from Nisan through Tishri, with adjustments in the other half of the year.
4. These adjustments appear to have resulted in four types of years, those of 354, 355, 383, or 384 days
(the 353- and 385-day years, used today by the Jews, must have been introduced much later.
5. A second Adar is assumed to have been inserted whenever Nisan 1 would precede the vernal equinox,
which fell about March 26.
6. This results in the pattern of a second Adar in 7 out of each 19 years. Except in two cases, when a fixed
papyrus date seems to indicate otherwise, these 13th months fell in the years commonly numbered 3, 6, 8,
11, 14, 17, and 19 of the Babylonian 19-year cycle.
Since this tabulation forms the basis for the exact Jewish dates given in this chapter, it is reproduced here
entire from the unpublished copy for the convenience of any readers of this book who wish to make a
detailed study of the dates for the period indicated.
350
Tables of Elephantine Jewish Calendar, 472/471 Through 400/399 B.C.
How to Use This Calendar Tabulation:—Each horizontal line of dates in this tabulation represents a
regnal year as reckoned in the Jewish fall-to-fall calendar, beginning with Tishri, the 7th month. The first
eight-line section comprises the 14th through the 21st years of Xerxes, and the following sections are the
reigns of Artaxerxes I and so on. The boldface figures are the B.C. years (those starred are leap years);
and the dates on each line (10/6, 11/5, etc.) are the Julian-calendar dates on which the Ist of each Jewish
month falls.
For example, the first line represents the 14th year of the Xerxes by Jewish reckoning. It begins in 472
B.C. (second column) with Tish[ri] 1, which falls on October 6, abbreviated to 10/6 (third column), that is,
the day beginning at sunset of October 5. The 1st of the next month, Mar[heshvan], is 11/5 (November 5,
beginning at sunset of November 4); Kis[lev] 1 is December 4. Next comes the boldface figure 471,
indicating the opening of a new B.C. year (Julian). Hence the remaining months of this Jewish year begin
in 471: Teb[eth] 1 falls on January 3, 471; Sheb[at] 1 on February 1, Ad[ar] 1 on March 3, Nis[an] 1 on
April 1, Iyy[ar] 1 on May 1, Siv[an] 1 on May 30, Tam[muz] 1 on June 29, Ab 1 on July 28, Elul 1 on
August 27. This last date appears in red because one of the double-dated papyri was written in that month,
thus fixing the date. (The 14 dates so marked on this calendar are the basis on which the rest of the
calendar is computed.)
In the next year, the 15th of Xerxes, which begins in 471 B.C. (September 25), Tebeth is still in 471;
hence the boldface date 470 appears in the column between Tebeth and Shebat, which is the first month
beginning in 470. This 15th year has a 13th month, the second Adar. The column headed “Ad[ar] I”
shows that 7 out of 19 years contain the second Adar.
Many Biblical dates in this chapter of the book have been computed according to this tentative
reconstruction of the Jewish calendar; for example, the dates of Ezra’s journey to Judea (Ezra 7:9; 8:15,
31). In the tabulation the line numbered the 7th year of Artaxerxes I shows that year beginning by Jewish
reckoning in 458 B.C., on Tishri 1, or October 2, and places Nisan 1 of that year, the date of Ezra’s
departure, on March 27, 457. Ezra left Ahava on the 12th of the same month, 11 days later, which would
be April 7 (that is, April 6/7, sunset to sunset); and his arrival date, the Ist of the 5th month (Ab), was
July 23. Although the B.C. number at the beginning of this 7th year is 458, it changes to 457 between
Tebeth 1 and Shebat 1; hence Ezra’s dates in Nisan and Ab are all in 457.
Regnal | B.C. | Tish. | Mar. | Kis. | B.C. | Teb. | B.C. | Sheb. | Ad. | Ad. | Nis. | Iyy. | Siv. | Tam. | Ab. | Elul.
I
XERXES
14 472 | 10/6 | 11/5 | 12/4 | 471 | 1/3 2/1 3/3 4/1 | S/1 | 5/30 | 6/29 | 7/28 | 8/27
15 471 | 9/25 | 10/25 | 11/23 12/23 | 470 | 1/21 | 2/20 | 3/22 | 4/20 | 5/20 | 6/18 | 7/18 | 8/16 | 9/15
351
16 470 | 10/14 | 11/23 | 12/12 | 469* | 1/11 2/9 3/10 4/8 | 5/8 | 6/6 | 7/6 | 8/4 | 9/3
17 469 | 10/2 | 11/1 | 12/1 12/31 | 468 | 1/29 | 2/28 3/29 | 4/28 | 5/27 | 6/26 | 7/25 | 8/24
18 468 | 9/22 | 10/22 | 11/20 12/20 | 467 | 1/18 | 2/17 | 3/19 | 4/17 | 5/17 | 6/15 | 7/15 | 8/13 | 9/12
19 467 | 10/11 | 11/10) 12/9 | 466 | 1/8 2/6 3/8 4/6 | 5/6 | 6/4 | 7/4 | 8/2 | 9/1
20 466 | 9/20 | 10/30 | 11/28 12/28 | 465* | 1/26 | 2/25 | 3/26 | 4/24 | 5/24 | 6/22 | 7/22 | 8/20 | 9/19
21 465 | 10/18 | 11/17 | 12/16 | 464 | 1/15 2/13 | 3/15 4/13 | 5/13 | 6/11 | 7/11 | 8/9 | 9/8
ARTAXERKXES I
1 464 | 10/7 | 11/6 | 12/6 | 463 | 1/5 2/3 3/5 4/3 | 5/3, | 6/1 | 7/1 7/30 | 8/29
2 463 | 9/27 | 10/27 | 11/25 12/25 | 462 | 1/23. | 2/22 | 3/24 | 4/22 | 5/22 | 6/20 | 7/20 | 8/18 | 9/17
3 462 | 10/16 | 11/15 | 12/14 | 461* | 1/13 2/11 |) 3/12 4/10 | 5/10 | 6/8 | 7/8 8/6 | 9/5
4 461 | 10/4 | 11/3 | 12/2 | 460 | 1/1 1/30 | 3/1 3/30 | 4/29 | 5/28 | 6/27 | 7/26 | 8/25
5 460 | 9/23 | 10/23 | 11/21 12/21 | 459 | 1/19 | 2/18 | 3/20 | 4/18 | 5/18 | 6/16 | 7/16 | 8/14 | 9/13
6 459 | 10/12 | 11/11 | 12/11 | 458 | 1/10 2/8 3/10 4/8 | 5/8 | 6/6 | 7/6 | 8/4 | 9/3
7 458 | 10/2 | 11/1 | 11/30 12/30 | 457* | 1/28 | 2/27 3/27 | 4/26 | 5/25 | 6/24 | 7/23 | 8/22
8 457 | 9/20 | 10/20 | 11/18 12/18 | 456 | 1/16 | 2/15 | 3/17 | 4/15 | 5/15 | 6/13 | 7/13 | 8/11 | 9/10
9 456 | 10/9 | 11/8 | 12/7 | 455 | 1/6 2/4 3/6 4/4 | 5/4 | 6/2 | 7/2 | 7/31 | 8/30
10 455 | 9/28 | 10/28 |) 11/26 12/26 | 454 | 1/24 | 2/23 | 3/25 | 4/23 | 5/23 | 6/21 | 7/21 | 8/19 | 9/18
11 454 | 10/17 | 11/16 | 12/15 | 453* | 1/14 2/12 | 3/13 4/11 | 5/11 | 6/9 | 7/9 8/7 | 9/6
12 453 | 10/5 | 11/4 | 12/4 | 452 | 1/3 2/1 3/3 4/1 | 5/1 | 5/30 | 6/29 | 7/28 | 8/27
13 452 | 9/25 | 10/25 | 11/23 12/23 | 451 | 1/21 | 2/20 | 3/22 | 4/20 | 5/20 | 6/18 | 7/18 | 8/16 | 9/15
14 451 | 10/14 | 11/13 | 12/12 | 450 | 1/11 2/9 3/11 4/9 | 5/9 | 6/7 | 7/7 8/5 | 9/4
15 450 | 10/3 | 11/2 | 12/2 | 449* | 1/1 1/30 | 2/29 3/29 | 4/28 | 5/27 | 6/26 | 7/25 | 8/24
16 449 | 9/22 | 10/22 | 11/20 12/20 | 448 | 1/18 | 2/17 | 3/19 | 4/17 | 5/17 | 6/15 | 7/15 | 8/13 | 9/12
17 448 | 10/11 | 11/10) 12/9 | 447 | 1/8 2/6 3/8 4/6 | 5/6 | 6/4 | 7/4 | 8/2 | 9/1
18 447 | 9/30 | 10/30 | 11/28 12/28 | 446 | 1/26 | 2/25 3/26 | 4/25 | 5/24 | 6/23 | 7/22 | 8/21
352
19 446 | 9/19 | 10/19 | 11/17 12/17 | 445* | 1/15 | 2/14 | 3/15 | 4/13 | 5/13 | 6/11 | 7/11 | 8/9 | 9/8
20 445 | 10/7 | 11/6 | 12/5 | 444 | 1/4 2/2 3/4 4/2 | 5/2 | 5/31 | 6/30 | 7/29 | 8/28
21 444 | 9/26 | 10/26 | 11/24 12/24 | 443 | 1/22 | 2/21 | 3/23 | 4/21 | 5/21 | 6/19 | 7/19 | 8/17 | 9/16
22 443 | 10/15 | 11/14 | 12/14 | 442 | 1/13 2/11 | 3/13 4/11 | 5/11 | 6/9 | 7/9 8/7 | 9/6
23 442 | 10/5 | 11/4 | 12/3 | 441* | 1/2 1/31 | 3/1 3/30 | 4/29 | 5/28 | 6/27 | 7/26 | 8/25
24 441 | 9/23 | 10/23 | 11/21 12/21 | 440 | 1/19 | 2/18 | 3/20 | 4/18 | 5/18 | 6/16 | 7/16 | 8/14 | 9/13
25 440 | 10/12 | 11/11 | 12/10 | 439 | 1/9 2/7 3/9 4/7 | 5/7 | 6/5, | 7/5 8/3 | 9/2
26 439 | 10/1 | 10/31 | 11/29 12/29 | 438 | 1/27 | 2/26 | 3/28 | 4/26 | 5/26 | 6/24 | 7/24 | 8/22 | 9/21
27 438 | 10/20 | 11/19 ) 12/18 | 437* | 1/17 2/15 | 3/16 4/14 | 5/14 | 6/12 | 7/12 | 8/10 | 9/9
28 437 | 10/8 | 11/7 | 12/7 | 436 | 1/6 2/4 3/6 4/4 | 5/4 | 6/2 | 7/2 | 7/31 | 8/30
29 436 | 9/28 | 10/28 |) 11/26 12/26 | 435 | 1/24 | 2/23 | 3/25 | 4/23 | 5/23 | 6/21 | 7/21 | 8/19 | 9/18
30 435 | 10/17 | 11/16 | 12/15 | 434 | 1/14 2/12 | 3/14 4/12 | 5/12 | 6/10 | 7/10 | 8/8 | 9/7
31 434 | 10/6 | 11/5 | 12/5 | 433* | 1/4 2/2 3/3 4/1 | 5/1 | 5/30 | 6/29 | 7/28 | 8/27
32 433 | 9/25 | 10/25 | 11/23 12/23 | 432 | 1/21 | 2/20 | 3/22 | 4/20 | 5/20 | 6/18 | 7/18 | 8/16 | 9/15
33 432 | 10/14 | 11/13 | 12/12 | 431 | 1/11 2/9 3/11 4/9 | 5/9 | 6/7 | 7/7 8/5 | 9/4
34 431 | 10/3 | 11/2 | 12/1 12/31 | 430 | 1/29 | 2/28 3/29 | 4/28 | 5/27 | 6/26 | 7/25 | 8/24
3D 430 | 9/22 | 10/22 | 11/20 12/20 | 429* | 1/18 | 2/17 | 3/18 | 4/16 | 5/16 | 6/14 | 7/14 | 8/12 | 9/11
36 429 | 10/10 | 11/9 | 12/9 | 428 | 1/8 2/6 3/8 4/6 | 5/6 | 6/4 | 7/4 | 8/2 | 9/1
37 428 | 9/30 | 10/30 | 11/28 12/28 | 427 | 1/26 | 2/25 3/26 | 4/25 | 5/24 | 6/23 | 7/22 | 8/21
38 427 | 9/19 | 10/19 | 11/17 12/17 | 426 | 1/15. | 2/14 | 3/16 | 4/14 | 5/14 | 6/12 | 7/12 | 8/10 | 9/9
39 426 | 10/8 | 11/7 | 12/6 | 425* | 1/5 2/3 3/4 4/2 | 5/2 | 5/31 | 6/30 | 7/29 | 8/28
40 425 | 9/26 | 10/26 | 11/24 12/24 | 424 | 1/22 | 2/21 | 3/23 | 4/21 | 5/21 | 6/19 | 7/19 | 8/17 | 9/16
41 424 | 10/15 | 11/14 | 12/13 | 423 | 1/12 2/10 | 3/12 4/10 | 5/10 | 6/8 | 7/8 8/6 | 9/5
DARIUS II
1 423 | 10/4 | 11/3 | 12/3 | 422 | 1/2 1/31 | 3/2 3/31 | 4/30 | 5/29 | 6/28 | 7/27 | 8/26
353
2 422 | 9/24 | 10/24 | 11/22 12/22 | 421* | 1/20 | 2/19 | 3/20 | 4/18 | 5/18 | 6/16 | 7/16 | 8/14 | 9/13
3 421 | 10/12 | 11/11 | 12/20 | 420 | 1/9 2/7 3/9 4/7 | 5/7 | 6/5. | 7/5 8/3 | 9/2
4 420 | 10/1 | 10/31 ) 11/30 12/30 | 419 | 1/28 | 2/27 3/28 | 4/27 | 5/26 | 6/25 | 7/24 | 8/23
5 419 | 9/21 | 10/21 | 11/19 12/19 | 418 | 1/17 | 2/16 | 3/18 | 4/16 | 5/16 | 6/14 | 7/14 | 8/12 | 9/11
6 418 | 10/10 | 11/9 | 12/8 | 417* | 1/7 2/5 3/6 4/4 | 5/4 | 6/2 | 7/2 | 7/31 | 8/30
7 417 | 9/28 | 10/28 |) 11/26 12/26 | 416 | 1/24 | 2/23 | 3/25 | 4/23 | 5/23 | 6/21 | 7/21 | 8/19 | 9/18
8 416 | 10/17 | 11/16 | 12/15 | 415 | 1/14 2/12 | 3/14 4/12 | 5/12 | 6/10 | 7/10 | 8/8 | 9/7
9 415 | 10/6 | 11/5 | 12/4 | 414 | 1/3 2/1 3/3 4/1 | 5/1 | 5/30 | 6/29 | 7/28 | 8/27
10 414 | 9/25 | 10/25 | 11/23 12/23 | 413* | 1/21 | 2/20 | 3/21 | 4/19 | 5/19 | 6/17 | 7/17 | 8/15 | 9/14
11 413 | 10/13 | 11/12 | 12/12 | 412 | 1/11 2/9 3/11 4/9 | 5/9 | 6/7 | 7/7 8/5 | 9/4
12 412 | 10/3 | 11/2 | 12/1 12/31 | 411 | 1/29 | 2/28 3/29 | 4/28 | 5/27 | 6/26 | 7/25 | 8/24
13 411 | 9/22 | 10/22 | 11/20 12/20 | 410 | 1/18 | 2/17 | 3/19 | 4/17 | 5/17 | 6/15 | 7/15 | 8/13 | 9/12
14 410 | 10/11 | 11/10 | 12/9 | 409* | 1/8 2/6 3/7 4/5 | 5/5 | 6/3 | 7/3 8/1 | 8/31
15 409 | 9/29 | 10/29 | 11/28 12/28 | 408 | 1/26 | 2/25 3/26 | 4/25 | 5/24 | 6/23 | 7/22 | 8/21
16 408 | 9/19 | 10/19 | 11/17 12/17 | 407 | 1/15. | 2/14 | 3/16 | 4/14 | 5/14 | 6/12 | 7/12 | 8/10 | 9/9
17 407 | 10/8 | 11/7 | 12/6 | 406 | 1/5 2/3 3/5 4/3 | 5/3, | 6/1 | 7/1 7/30 | 8/29
18 406 | 9/27 | 10/27 | 11/25 12/25 | 405* | 1/23 | 2/22 | 3/23 | 4/21 | 5/21 | 6/19 | 7/19 | 8/17 | 9/16
19 405 | 10/15 | 11/14 ) 12/13 | 404 | 1/12 2/10 | 3/12 4/10 | 5/10 | 6/8 | 7/8 8/6 | 9/5
ARTAXERKXES II
1 404 | 10/4 | 11/3 | 12/2 | 403 | I/1 1/30 | 3/1 3/30 | 4/29 | 5/28 | 6/27 | 7/26 | 8/25
2 403 | 9/23 | 10/23 | 11/21 12/21 | 402 | 1/19 | 2/18 | 3/20 | 4/18 | 5/18 | 6/16 | 7/16 | 8/14 | 9/13
3 402 | 10/12 | 11/11 | 12/11 | 401* | 1/10 2/8 3/9 4/7 | 5/7 | 6/5, | 7/5 8/3 | 9/2
4 401 | 10/1 | 10/31 | 11/29 12/29 | 400 | 1/27 | 2/26 3/27 | 4/26 | 5/25 | 6/24 | 7/23 | 8/22
5 400 | 9/20 | 10/20 | 11/18 12/18 | 399 | 1/16 | 2/15 | 3/17 | 4/15 | 5/15 | 6/13 | 7/13 | 8/11 | 9/10
*This is a leap year.
354
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS
Introduction
The sixteen prophets—Isaiah to Malachi—whose writings have come down to us lived during four
centuries, from about 800 to 400 B.C. Most of them left chronological data by which the duration of their
ministry can be determined, at least approximately. For two of them (Joel and Obadiah), however, no
conclusive evidence as to the time of their work exists, and scholars differ widely in their views
concerning this matter.
The accompanying chart enables the reader to study these prophets in their historical setting. Many
messages and prophecies can be understood correctly only if seen against the background of the time in
which the prophets ministered and in the light of the events that happened during their lives.
Inasmuch as it is possible to date the kings of Judah and Israel, especially the later ones, with
comparatively high accuracy, the various reigns during which these sixteen prophets ministered have been
entered in this chart according to the tentative chronology used in this book. The kings of Assyria,
Babylonia, and Persia, whose dates for this period are well established, are shown in a separate column.
Most of them are mentioned in the Bible, in either the prophetic or the historical books. One column
provides a list of certain special events of this period—some of a political nature, concerning the nations
surrounding Israel and Judah, others of a domestic nature. This chart shows only those events that are
mentioned in the Bible and that are of importance to an understanding of the prophetic messages.
The following brief summaries contain the evidence on which the various prophets have been entered in
the chronological positions in which they are found in the chart.
Isaiah
Isaiah was the great forerunner of the writers. This fact is recognized by the various New Testament
writers, who quoted Isaiah more than 90 times. Isaiah was a prophet of the southern kingdom, living in a
critical period of his nation. He played an important role during two momentous periods: (1) under Ahaz,
during the war between Syria and Israel (chapters 7-11), and (2) under Hezekiah, during a siege of
Jerusalem by Sennacherib chapters 36; 37). Encouraging Hezekiah and the people through his own trust
in God, he was instrumental in saving Jerusalem.
His early ministry seems to have coincided with the last years of King Uzziah’s reign (see Introduction to
Isaiah), but his official call to the office of a prophet came in 740/39, the last year of King Uzziah
(chapter 6:1). Continuing faithfully under the following three kings, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (chapter
1:1), he seems to have been fiercely hated by Manasseh, Hezekiah’s wicked son. When Manasseh came
to the throne as sole ruler upon his father’s death, approximately in 686, he lost little time in removing the
355
faithful seer. According to Jewish tradition Isaiah was sawn asunder. It is possible that Hebrews 11:37
refers to this event.
GE Adad-nirari ti, 810 - 782
GEE Shaimaneser IV through Ashur-nirari V, (782 - 746) Kings of...
GEE Tiglach-pileser it, 745 - 727 *
BB Shalmaneser V, 727 - 722 Assyria
HB Sargon It, 722 - 705 Babylon
eH s signee Persia
GER Asurdanipal 669 - 627!
Assyria WEE Lase Assyrian Kings. 627? - 609
Nabopolassar 626 - 605 (I)
Nebuchadnezzar 605 - 562 (UND
Amel - Marduk through Labashi - Marduk (562 - 556)
Nabonidus (and Belshazzar) 556 - $39 (i)
Time B.C. 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400
Fall of Thebes 663 Return of Zerubbabel 536
Sennacherib’s first Palestinian campaign, 701 Fall of Babylon 539 Return of Nehemiah 444
Fall of Samaria 723/22 Fall of Jerusalem S86 Return of Ezra 457
‘Fall of Damascus 732 Fall of Nineveh 612
: 14
P. hets Nahum ¢. 640? @ © Joel c. 620? | Zechariah $20 - ¢. $18 @ Malachi c. 425
Prophets| GI Isaiah ¢. 745 - c. 685 © Obadiah ¢. 586 @ Haggai 520(5192)
; GR Micah c.740-¢. 700 NNN Daniel 603/602 - 536/535
Judah | GME Ezekiel 593/592 - «. 570
Jeremiah c. 627 - ¢. 580 (or 560)
@ Habakkuk <.
Amos ¢. 767 - 753 @ Zephaniah c. £33
Amos c. 767 - 753
WH Hosea c. 755 - «. 725
@ Jonah c. 790?
WE Amaziah 796 - 767 | Amon 642 - 640
Rings (QUNNNNNNNN Azariah (Uzziah) 790 - 739 RIN Josiah 640 - 609 __ To Kings of ;
judah | um lotham 750 - 731 Jehoahaz 609 Assyria, Babylon, and Persia
Wy Abaz 735 - 715 ® Jehoiakim 609 - 598
Hezekiah 729 - 686 SI ©@ Jehoiachin 598/597
Manassch 697 - 642 NNN (@ Zedekiah 597 - 586
IME Jehoash 798 - 782
(NE Jeroboam It 793 - 753 .
Israel Prrecm Prophets and Kings
GUNN Pekah 752 - 732
GB Homhon 83-70 of Judah and Israel
| Pekahiah 742 - 740
WW Hoshea 732 - 722
TimeB.C. «800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400
356
Isaiah’s whole ministry from Uzziah to Manasseh must therefore have lasted more than half a century.
Jeremiah
The life story of Jeremiah is better known than that of any other prophet. He belonged to a family of
priests whose home town was Anathoth. Jeremiah had been chosen by God for his office before birth
(chapter 1:5), and was called to be a prophet at a tender age (chapter 1:6, 7). Although the Hebrew term
na‘ar, “youth,” or “child,” by which the prophet designates himself verse (6), does not give an indication
of Jeremiah’s exact age at the time of his call, the context of the passage in which this word appears
seems to favor the interpretation that he was still very young, perhaps less than twenty. This call came to
him in the 13th year of King Josiah (chapters 1:2; 25:3), about 627. Josiah was also still a young king,
having reached the age of but 21 years at that time.
Living in a crisis period of his nation, Jeremiah was called to proclaim many messages of reproof and
solemn predictions of doom over his people for their disobedience. During the reign of Jehoiakim he
nearly lost his life for his bold messages, and hence went into hiding (chapter 36:26). During the reign of
Zedekiah, Judah’s last king, Jeremiah was thrown into prison, being considered a traitor to his country
(chapter 37:11-16) because he advised his people to surrender to the Babylonians. After Jerusalem’s fall
in 586, Nebuchadnezzar allowed Jeremiah to stay with the remnant of his people who were left in the
country (chapter 40:1-6). After the murder of Gedaliah, the new governor of Judea, the Jews of Mizpah,
fearing the revenge of Nebuchadnezzar, went to Egypt and took with them Jeremiah as well as his
secretary Baruch (chapter 43:6).
In Egypt, Jeremiah raised his voice against the idolatries the Jews practiced there (chapters 43; 44). He
probably died in the Nile country. A Jewish legend claims that he was stoned to death by his people. If
chapter 52, a historical appendix, was written by the prophet, he must have lived until 561, when
Jehoiachin was released from prison by King Evil-Merodach of Babylon (see chapter 52:31). In this case,
he was an octogenarian. Those who think that chapter 52 was added as an inspired postscript by
Jeremiah’s secretary or one of his disciples, believe that he died some 20 years earlier, about 580 B.C.
The chart allows both ideas, indicating his possible ministry during the two decades preceding 560 B.C.
by means of a broken line.
Ezekiel
The prophet Ezekiel, a priest, was one of the 10,000 Jews taken into exile by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C.,
when King Jehoiachin was carried to Babylon. In the 5th year of Jehoiachin’s captivity, 593/92, Ezekiel
had his first vision by “the river Chebar,” a canal near the famous city of Nippur in lower Babylonia
(chapter 1:1-3). Enigmatic is his statement that this 5th year of captivity was also the “thirtieth year.” It is
believed that the prophet refers either to his own age or to that year as the 30th year reckoned from the
reform which took place during the 18th year of Josiah.
Several of the prophet’s messages are dated exactly, and the last of these dated prophetic messages was
received in the 27th year of Ezekiel’s captivity (chapter 29:17), 571/70. This leaves Ezekiel with a
ministry of at least 22 years, from 593/92 to 571/70. However, it is possible that some of his undated
357
prophecies were given at a later time. Hence the year 571/70 must not be considered as necessarily
marking the end of his ministry.
Daniel
Daniel was taken to Babylon in 605 B.C., during the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar (see on chapter
1:1). But it was not until his 3rd year in captivity, the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar, that young Daniel
gave the first proofs of his prophetic calling (chapters 1:5, 17; 2:1, 19). Hence, the year 603 can be
considered as the beginning of Daniel’s ministry as a prophet.
For some time he held a high position in Nebuchadnezzar’s government (chapter 2:48), and became a
trusted counselor of the great king. Under Nebuchadnezzar’s successors Daniel’s service seems not to
have been desired. However, he is again found playing a role on the night of Babylon’s fall, as interpreter
of the mysterious handwriting on the wall (chapter 5). Shortly after this event he once more rose to a high
position of honor and responsibility in the newly formed Persian Empire (chapter 6).
All the visions of Daniel recorded in chapters 7-12 were received during the last years of his life, the first
one (chapter 7) in Belshazzar’s Ist year (552 or possibly later), and the last one (chapters 10-12) in the
3rd year of Cyrus, 536/35 B.C. It was probably at this time, when Daniel was nearly 90 years of age, that
he was commanded to conclude his book and seal it up (chapter 12:4, 13). For these reasons Daniel’s
extended prophetic ministry can be dated approximately from 603 to 535 B.C.
Hosea
The prophet Hosea was a citizen of the northern kingdom of Israel, whose ruler, Jeroboam II, is called by
the prophet, “our king” (chapters 1:1; 7:5). A comparison between some of his prophecies and those of
Amos indicates that Hosea was a younger contemporary of Amos (cf. Hosea. 4:3 with Amos 8:8; Hosea
4:15 with Amos 5:5; and Hosea 8:14 with Amos 2:5). Having begun his ministry in the time of Uzziah,
king of Judah, and Jeroboam II, king of Israel (chapter 1:1), Hosea continued until the time of Hezekiah,
king of Judah (chapter 1:1). However, all his messages were addressed to the northern nation.
The book makes no reference to the fall of Samaria, which took place in 723/22 B.C., and it can therefore
be concluded that the prophet’s last message was given prior to Samaria’s destruction. For these reasons
his ministry can be dated from about 755 (or earlier) to about 725 B.C.
Joel
Nothing is known of the prophet Joel beyond the fact that he was the son of Pethuel (chapter 1:1). His
work is characterized by skill in the use of language, a well-balanced syntax, and a lively and impressive
poetry. Yet the book contains no clear indication of the time in which the prophet lived. It is impossible to
date the devastating plague of locusts that the prophet so vividly describes and compares with the terrors
of the coming day of judgment. Scholars differ widely in their views concerning the time of Joel’s
ministry. The older generation place him in the 9th century B.C., whereas most commentators are now
358
inclined to assign him either to the time of King Josiah or to the postexilic period. Since no conclusive
evidence for any of these three views exists, all are presented here:
1. The 9th-century view - The great empires of Assyria and Babylonia do not appear within the horizon
of the prophet. Hence, he seems to have labored at a time before Assyria played a role in Palestinian
affairs. Since the hostile acts of the heathen peoples committed against Judah (chapter 3:4 ff.) seem to
refer to those recorded in 2 Kings 8:20-22 and 2 Chronicles 21:8-10, 16, while nothing points to the
troubles caused by Hazael, as narrated in 2 Kings 12:17, 18 and 2 Chronicles 24:23, 24, it has been
concluded that Joel gave his messages during the time lying between these two events. It is thought,
furthermore, that his ministry fell in the years when the high priest Jehoiada acted as regent for the child
king Joash (2 Kings 11:17 to 12:2), which fact would explain why the king is not mentioned anywhere in
the book, while at the same time the Temple service flourished.
2. The 7th-century view - This view holds that Joel’s ministry seems to fit into the early years of Josiah,
when Assyrian power was nearing its end and Babylon was still a weak kingdom. Hence no reference to
these two kingdoms was made by the prophet. Since Josiah came to the throne as a child, he must have
lived under a regent, which explains why no king is mentioned by Joel. Furthermore, the fact that the
people of Tyre and Sidon do not appear as hostile nations of Judah until the last decades of its history,
while they are mentioned by Joel as Judah’s enemies, seems also to point to a late date for the prophet’s
ministry. To this can be added the mention of Greeks (chapter 3:6), who hardly played a role in Near
Eastern history earlier than the 7th century. For these reasons the 7th-century date for Joel has been
adopted in this book, although there is no conclusive proof that this choice is correct.
3. The postexilic view - The absence of any reference to a king of Judah or to Assyria or Babylon, the
reference to the hostility of Tyre and Sidon, and the mention of Greeks have been taken by some
commentators as evidence for a postexilic date for Joel. However, there is also no reference made to
Persia, which would be expected if the book was of so late a date. This fact weakens the arguments for
such a late date.
Amos
Amos presents himself to his readers as a “herdsman” and a “gatherer of sycomore fruit” (chapters 1:1;
7:14). In the introduction to his book he declares that he worked under the kings Uzziah of Judah and
Jeroboam II of Israel. Since only these two kings are mentioned, Amos seems to have prophesied during
the time when both kings were sole rulers in their respective kingdoms. Uzziah was sole king over Judah
from 767 to 750, and Jeroboam over Israel from 782 to 753. The ministry of Amos may therefore have
fallen in the years 767-753 B.C. A closer dating is impossible in spite of the statement that his first divine
message came to him “two years before the earthquake” (chapter 1:1), because the date of this event is
unknown. However, that earthquake must have been very severe, for the memory of it was still fresh in
the minds of people who lived 250 years later, as Zechariah 14:5 shows.
The prophet was a citizen of Judah, but delivered messages to the kingdom of Israel as well. Several of
his messages were against various foreign nations. He went to Bethel, a sanctuary city of the northern
kingdom, to deliver prophecies of warning, reproof, and doom to Israel.
359
Obadiah
The short book of Obadiah, consisting of only 21 verses, is not dated and its chronological setting is
uncertain. Obadiah’s prophecy, directed against Edom, presupposes that a looting of Jerusalem and a
carrying away of many Jews into captivity had recently taken place. Some believe that the prophet refers
to the conquest of Jerusalem at the time of King Jehoram (2 Kings 8:20-22; 2 Chronicles 21:8-10, 16, 17)
in the 9th century; others believe that the prophet is speaking of Jerusalem’s destruction by
Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. That some of the words he uses are also found in Jeremiah (Obadiah 1, 3, 4;
cf. Jeremiah 49:14, 16), and Joel (Obadiah 15, 17; cf. Joel 1:15; 2:1, 32) can hardly serve as evidence for
either a late or an early date. The late date is taken here, without prejudice toward an early one.
Jonah
The prophet Jonah was a Galilean from Gath-hepher. His book contains no direct to establish the time of
his mission to Nineveh. However, 2 Kings 14:25 states that Jonah also pronounced a prophecy concerning
the expansion of Israel that was fulfilled by Jeroboam II. This prophecy must have been pronounced
either before Jeroboam came to the throne (approximately 793 B.C.) or during the early years of his reign.
Hence, Jonah was probably the earliest of the prophets under discussion.
So early a date for Jonahls ministry—about 790 B.C.—fits well into Assyrian history. The only period in
which the mission of Jonah to Nineveh, with its results, seems to fit is the reign of Adad-nirari III (810—
782). For a short time during his reign Assyria turned from its polytheistic religion to a kind of
monotheistic Nabu worship.
Micah
Micah was a prophet from Moresheth-gath (chapter 1:1, 14), probably Tell ej—Judeideh in southwestern
Judah. He should not be confused with Micaiah, the son of Imlah, a prophet of Israel in Ahab’s time (9th
century B.C.). Earlier commentators attempted to equate the two men, because of the use of similar
expressions in their utterances (Micah 1:2; cf. 1 Kings 22:28). However, the chronological data given by
Micah are against such an identification and show that a century or more lies between the two men.
Micah states that his ministry fell in the time of the kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (chapter 1:1).
Since Jotham’s sole reign began after the death of his father Uzziah in 740/39, the initial date for Micah’s
prophetic ministry should probably be placed after that date. He was therefore a somewhat younger
contemporary of Isaiah, to whose vocabulary and terminology his prophecies show great similarity
(Micah 4:1-4; cf. Isaiah 2:2-4). Also, Jeremiah (chapter 26:18), quoting Micah (chapter 3:12), testifies
that Micah ministered during Hezekiah’s time. All this leads to the conclusion that Micah prophesied
from about 740 to about 700 B.C.
360
Nahum
Nahum is called the Elkoshite (chapter 1:1), but Elkosh is unknown as a place name, although
commentators have tried to identify it with Elkesi in northern Galilee, Alkush near Mosul, and a town
near Eleutheropolis in Judah. It is certain, however, that he lived and labored in the southern kingdom,
and that his main prophecy dealt with Assyria in general and Nineveh in particular. No chronological data
are given, but the prophet speaks of the fall of No (chapter 3:8) as an event of the past. This Upper
Egyptian capital city, better known by its Greek name Thebes, was destroyed by King Ashurbanipal in
663 B.C., a date that provides the upper time limit of Nahum’s prophecy. On the other hand, the
destruction of Nineveh is described as an event still future (chapter 3:7). The Assyrian capital city of
Nineveh was captured and destroyed by the combined forces of Media and Babylonia in 612 B.C., which
is, accordingly, the latest possible date for Nahum. The prophet’s vivid description of the catastrophe that
had befallen Thebes leaves the impression that the event was still fresh in the memory of the people,
whereas Assyria’s power, although waning, was not yet near its end. Hence, 640 B.C., about midway
between the two limits, marked by the destruction of Thebes and the fall of Nineveh, would seem to be a
reasonable conjectural date for Nahum’s prophetic ministry.
Habakkuk
Nothing is known concerning the prophet Habakkuk beyond his name. It is possible that he was a Temple
singer, since his third chapter is dedicated to the “chief singer on my stringed instruments” (chapter 3:19).
Although no chronological data are found in the book, certain statements permit a comparatively exact
dating of Habakkuk’s prophecies. The Temple is mentioned as still existing (chapter 2:20), which shows
that the book was written before Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. Furthermore, the
rise of the Chaldeans and their invasion of the West is predicted, but this seemed at that time completely
incredible (chapter 1:5-7). This situation fits best the time prior to the rise of the Chaldean Empire under
Nabopolassar, who began to reign in 626/25 B.C., and who, with the Medes, was responsible for the
destruction of Assyria. A date, possibly about 630 B.C., but before the Chaldeans had become a power of
some importance, would seem most appropriate for the period of Habakkuk’s prophetic activity.
Zephaniah
The prophet Zephaniah traces his genealogy back to an important personage by the name of Hizkiah,
probably King Hezekiah (the names are the same in Hebrew) of Judah. He states that he ministered under
King Josiah (chapter 1:1), who reigned from 640 to 609 B.C. Nineveh’s destruction, which came in 612,
is referred to as a future event, indicating that Zephaniah’s work preceded this date. Furthermore, the
repeated mention of Judah’s wickedness, described as enormous in his day (see chapters 1:4-6, 8, 9, 12;
3:1-3, 7), points to the time before Josiah’s reform, which began in 623/22. These observations seem to
place Zephaniah in the early years of Josiah’s reign, perhaps about 630 B.C., as a contemporary of
Habakkuk.
361
Haggai
Haggai’s courageous ministry was responsible for the resumption of the rebuilding of the Temple in the
time of Darius I, after the work had ceased for some time (Ezra 4:24; 5:1). The book of Haggai contains
four addresses, each bearing a precise date giving the day, month, and year of Darius’ reign. The
consecutive order of the book of Haggai would indicate that his whole recorded ministry lasted not longer
than 3'/> months, beginning (chapter 1:1) on August 29, 520 B.C., and extending, in his last two recorded
speeches (chapter 2:10, 20), to December 18, 520. The work of no other prophet can be dated so
definitely as that of Haggai.
Zechariah
Zechariah probably belonged to a priestly family (chapter 1:1; cf. Nehemiah 12:12, 16). His call came to
him sometime in October/November, 520 B.C., in the same year as Haggai’s first appearance (chapter
1:1). Several prophecies followed a few months later (Zechariah 1:7 to 6:15). Then came a pause in his
activity of almost two years, at the end of which Zechariah received another divine message, on
December 6, 518 (chapter 7:1), recorded in chapters 7 and 8. The remaining messages and prophecies,
found in chapters 9-14, are not dated, a fact that prevents us from fixing the duration of the prophet’s
activity. While it is thus known that he began his work in 520 and continued until 518 B.C., the end of his
prophetic ministry must be left open. The close of his ministry is tentatively set by some scholars at 510.
It is possible that he worked much longer, as part of chapters 9-14 may have been given at a much later
time.
Malachi
It is not known whether Malachi is the name of the author or simply the title of an otherwise anonymous
author, since Malachi means “my messenger.” If it is the latter, his is the only anonymous work among
the prophetic books of the Old Testament. However, there is no valid reason why Malachi should not be
considered a proper name. Not only is Malachi last in the sequential order of the prophets; it is also the
last prophetic book produced in pre-Christian times. Its messages show that it was written after the time
of the kingdom of Judah, when a governor ruled over the country (chapter 1:8), a fact that points to the
Persian period. The Temple was apparently rebuilt, and sacrifices were regularly offered at the time of the
prophet’s activity (chapter 1:7-10). The various abuses rebuked by Malachi are mostly the same as those
Nehemiah found when he returned to Jerusalem for his second term of governorship (Malachi 3:8, 9; cf.
Nehemiah 13:10-12; Malachi 2:11-16; cf. Nehemiah 13:23-27).
Unfortunately, Nehemiah’s second term as governor cannot be dated, which fact makes it also somewhat
difficult to date Malachi. Nehemiah’s first term lasted from 444 to 432 B.C. (chapter 5:14), after which he
was recalled to Persia. There, he spent an unknown number of years before his return to Judea and his
discovery of the abuses described in chapter 13. These were remedied by the vigorous actions of the
governor. This leads us to conclude that Malachi’s work may have followed Nehemiah’s first term as
governor, but preceded his return to Jerusalem from the Persian capital. Accordingly, the book can
probably be dated about 425 B.C.
362
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
THE ROLE OF ISRAEL IN OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY
Introduction
This chapter surveys the fundamental problem of the interpretation of the prophetic portions of the Old
Testament in terms of their message to Israel of old and to the church today. Consideration is given to the
role of literal Israel as God’s chosen people, to the way His plan for them was to have been accomplished,
to the way in which it actually did work out, and to the eventual transfer of the privileges and
responsibilities of literal Israel to spiritual Israel, that is, to the Christian church. A clear understanding of
these aspects of the problem is essential to the formulation of a valid procedure for interpreting the
messages of the Old Testament prophets. Any interpretation that fails to give these matters due
consideration does violence to the Scriptures.
Few passages of Scripture are more commonly misunderstood and variously interpreted than those
containing the divine promises made to ancient Israel through the prophets. It is an undeniable historical
fact that, to this day, the majority of these predictions have not been fulfilled. In the endeavor to account
for this seeming enigma, Bible expositors have set forth various explanations:
1. The modernist school of interpretation denies the predictive element in prophecy altogether, arguing
either that the “predictions” were written down after the events thus “foretold” took place or that such
“predictions” reflected nothing more than the prophet’s hopes for the future, or those of his people.
2. The futurist school of interpretation contends that the many promises of restoration and world
leadership made to ancient Israel are yet to be fulfilled in connection with the establishment of the
modern state of Israel in Palestine.
3. The British-Israel movement teaches that the Anglo-Saxon peoples are the literal descendants of the ten
so-called “lost tribes” of the northern kingdom and that the promises will, in large measure, be fulfilled to
their modern posterity.
4. A less-well-defined school of interpretation bases its approach to the prophetic portions of the Old
Testament on the theory that the prophet, while bearing messages to the people of his day, also took
occasional excursions into the distant future, with the result that many of his forecasts did not apply to
literal Israel at all, but were intended exclusively for “Israel after the spirit,” that is, for the church today.
Following this line of interpretation, some have gone to the extreme of proposing a Christian migration to
Palestine.
5. Many believe that, generally speaking, the promises and predictions given through the Old Testament
prophets originally applied to literal Israel and were to have been fulfilled to them on the condition that
they obey God and remain loyal to Him. But the Scriptures record the fact that they disobeyed God and
proved disloyal to Him instead. Accordingly, what He purposed to do for the world through Israel of old
363
He will finally accomplish through His church on earth today, and many of the promises originally made
to literal Israel will be fulfilled to His remnant people at the close of time.
The modernist school of interpretation bases its position on the a priori assumption that any knowledge of
the future is impossible, and ignores all evidence to the contrary. The futurist school ignores both the
conditional element pervading predictive prophecy, clearly and emphatically proclaimed by the prophets
themselves, and the specific statements of the New Testament that affirm that the privileges and
responsibilities of ancient Israel have, in Christ, been transferred to the church. The exposition of
Scripture attempted by proponents of the British-Israel theory consists of an admixture of selected Bible
passages with legend, folk tales, and speculation. The fourth school of interpretation may, at times, arrive
at a valid application of the predictive portions of Old Testament prophecy to the church today and to its
future experience, but neglects the primary application of these messages to their historical setting, and
proceeds, quite arbitrarily, to determine that certain selected passages were written more or less
exclusively for the church today. In one way or another each of these attempts at interpreting the
messages of the Old Testament prophets neglects significant teachings of Scripture, evades fundamental
principles of exegesis, and provides a distorted picture of the predictive sections of prophecy. The
following discussion sets forth the principles of interpretation described under “5,” and followed by this
commentary, together with the scriptural basis on which these principles rest.
Israel as God’s Chosen People
With the call of Abraham, God set in operation a definite plan for bringing the Messiah into the world and
for presenting the gospel invitation to all men (Genesis 12:1-3). In Abraham God found a man ready to
yield unqualified obedience to the divine will (Genesis 26:5; Hebrews 11:8) and to cultivate a similar
spirit in his posterity (Genesis 18:19). Accordingly, Abraham became in a special sense the “Friend of
God” (James 2:23) and “the father of all them that believe” (Romans 4:11). God entered into solemn
covenant relationship with him (Genesis 15:18; 17:2-7), and his posterity, Israel, inherited the sacred trust
of being God’s chosen representatives on earth (Hebrews 11:9) for the salvation of the entire human race.
Salvation was to be “of the Jews,” in that the Messiah would be a Jew (John 4:22), and by the Jews, as
messengers of salvation to all men (Genesis 12:2, 3; 22:18; Isaiah 42:1, 6; 43:10; Galatians 3:8, 16, 18).
At Mt. Sinai God entered into covenant relation with Israel as a nation (Exodus 19:1-8; 24:3-8;
Deuteronomy 7:6-14) upon the same basic conditions and with the same ultimate objectives as the
Abrahamic covenant. They voluntarily accepted God as their sovereign, and this constituted the nation a
theocracy. The sanctuary became God’s dwelling place among them (see Exodus 25:8), its priests were
ordained to minister before Him (Hebrews 5:1; 8:3), its services provided an object lesson of the plan of
salvation and prefigured the coming of the Messiah (1 Corinthians 5:7; Colossians 2:16, 17; Hebrews 9:1-
10; 10:1-12). The people might approach God personally and through the ministry of a mediating
priesthood, their representatives before Him; He would direct the nation through the ministry of prophets,
His appointed representatives to them. From generation to generation these “holy men of God” (2 Peter
1:21) called Israel to repentance and righteousness and kept alive the Messianic hope. By divine
appointment the sacred writings were preserved, century after century, and Israel became their custodian
(Amos 3:7; Romans 3:1, 2).
364
The establishment of the Hebrew monarchy did not affect the basic principles of the theocracy
(Deuteronomy 17:14-20; 1 Samuel 8:7). The state was still to be administered in the name, and by the
authority, of God. Even during the Captivity, and later under foreign tutelage, Israel remained a theocracy
in theory if not fully in practice. Only when its leaders formally rejected the Messiah and declared before
Pilate their allegiance to “no king but Caesar” (John 19:15) did Israel as a nation irrevocably withdraw
from the covenant relationship and the theocracy.
Through Israel of old, God planned to provide the nations of earth with a living revelation of His own
holy character and an exhibit of the glorious heights to which man can attain by cooperating with His
infinite purposes. At the same time, He permitted the heathen nations to “walk in their own ways” (Acts
14:16), to furnish an example of what man can accomplish apart from Him. Thus, for more than 1,500
years, a great experiment designed to test the relative merits of good and evil was conducted before the
world. Finally, “it was demonstrated before the universe that, apart from God, humanity could not be
uplifted,” and that “a new element of life and power must be imparted by Him who made the world”.
The Ideal: How the Plan Was to Operate
God placed His people in Palestine, the crossroads of the ancient world, and provided them with every
facility for becoming the greatest nation on the face of the earth. It was His purpose to set them “on high
above all nations of the earth” (Deuteronomy 28:1), with the result that “all people of the earth” would
recognize their superiority and call them “blessed” (Malachi 3:10, 12). Unparalleled prosperity, both
temporal and spiritual, was promised them as the reward for putting into practice the righteous and wise
principles of heaven (Deuteronomy 4:6-9; 7:12-15; 28:1-14). It was to be the result of wholehearted
cooperation with the will of God as revealed through the prophets, and of divine blessing added to human
efforts.
The success of Israel was to be based on and to include:
1. Holiness of character (Levites 19:2; see on Matthew 5:48). Without this, the people of Israel would
not qualify to receive the material blessings God designed to bestow upon them. Without this, the many
advantages would only result in harm to themselves and to others. Their own characters were to be
progressively ennobled and elevated, and to reflect more and more perfectly the attributes of the perfect
character of God (Deuteronomy 4:9; 28:1, 13, 14; 30:9, 10). Spiritual prosperity was to prepare the way
for material prosperity.
2. The blessings of health. Feebleness and disease were to disappear entirely from Israel as the result of
strict adherence to healthful principles (see Exodus 15:26; Deuteronomy 7:13, 15; etc.)
3. Superior intellect. Cooperation with the natural laws of body and mind would result in ever-increasing
mental strength, and the people of Israel would be blessed with vigor of intellect, keen discrimination, and
sound judgment. They were to be far in advance of other nations in wisdom and understanding. They
were to become a nation of intellectual geniuses, and feebleness of mind would eventually have been
unknown among them.
365
4. Skill in agriculture and animal husbandry. As the people cooperated with the directions God gave
them in regard to the culture of the soil, the land would gradually be restored to Edenic fertility and
beauty (Isaiah 51:3). It would become an object lesson of the results of acting in harmony with moral, as
with natural, law. Pests and diseases, flood and drought, crop failure—all these would eventually
disappear. See Deuteronomy 7:13; 28:2-8; Malachi 3:8-11.
5. Superior craftsmanship. The Hebrew people were to acquire wisdom and skill in all “cunning work,”
that is, a high degree of inventive genius and ability as artisans, for the manufacture of all kinds of
utensils and mechanical devices. Technical know-how would render products “made in Israel” superior to
all others. See Exodus 31:2-6; 35:33, 35.
6. Unparalleled prosperity. “Obedience to the law of God would make them marvels of prosperity
before the nations of the world,” living witnesses to the greatness and majesty of God (Deuteronomy 8:17,
18; 28:11-13).
7. National greatness. As individuals and as a nation God proposed to furnish the people of Israel “with
every facility for becoming the greatest nation on the earth” (see Deuteronomy 4:6-8; 7:6, 14; 28:1;
Jeremiah 33:9; Malachi 3:12). He purposed to make them an honor to His name and a blessing to the
nations about them.
As the nations of antiquity should behold Israel’s unprecedented progress, their attention and interest
would be aroused. “Even the heathen would recognize the superiority of those who served and worshiped
the living God”. Desiring the same blessings for themselves, they would make inquiry as to how they too
might acquire these obvious material advantages. Israel would reply, “Accept our God as your God, love
and serve Him as we do, and He will do the same for you.” “The blessings thus assured Israel” were, “on
the same conditions and in the same degree, assured to every nation and to every individual under the
broad heavens” see Acts 10:34, 35; 15:7-9; Romans 10:12, 13; etc.). All nations of earth were to share in
the blessings so generously bestowed upon Israel.
This concept of the role of Israel is reiterated again and again throughout the Old Testament. God was to
be glorified in Israel (Isaiah 49:3) and its people were to be His witnesses (chapters 43:10; 44:8), to reveal
to men the principles of His kingdom. They were to show forth His praise (chapter 43:21), to declare His
glory among the heathen (chapter 66:19), to be “a light to the Gentiles” (chapters 49:6; 42:6, 7). All men
would recognize that Israel stood in a special relationship to the God of heaven (Deuteronomy 7:6-14;
28:10; Jeremiah 16:20, 21). Beholding Israel’s “righteousness” (Isaiah 62:1, 2), “the Gentiles” would
“acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed” (Isaiah 61:9, 10; cf. Malachi
3:12), and their God the only true God (Isaiah 45:14). To their own question, “What nation is there so
great, who hath God so nigh unto them?” the Gentiles would answer, “Surely this great nation is a wise
and understanding people” (Deuteronomy 4:7, 6). Hearing of all the advantages with which the God of
Israel had blessed His people and “all the prosperity” He had procured for them (Jeremiah 33:9), the
pagan nations would admit that their own fathers had “inherited lies” (chapter 16:19).
The material advantages that Israel enjoyed were designed to arrest the attention and catch the interest of
the heathen, for whom the less obvious spiritual advantages had no natural attraction. They would “gather
themselves together” and “come from far” (Isaiah 49:18, 12, 6, 8, 9, 22; Psalms 102:22). “from the ends
of the earth” (Jeremiah 16:19), to the light of truth shining forth from the “mountain of the Lord” (Isaiah
366
2:3; 60:3; 56:7; cf. chapter 11:9, 10). Nations that had known nothing of the true God would “run” to
Jerusalem because of the manifest evidence of divine blessing that attended Israel (chapter 55:5).
Ambassadors from one foreign country after another would come to discover, if they might, the great
secret of Israel’s success as a nation, and its leaders would have the opportunity of directing the minds of
their visitors to the Source of all good things. From the visible their minds were to be directed to the
invisible, from the seen to the unseen, from the material to the spiritual, from the temporal to the eternal.
For a graphic picture of how one nation would have responded to the irresistible appeal radiating from an
Israel faithful to God, see Isaiah 19:18-22; cf. Psalms 68:31.
Returning to their homelands, the Gentile ambassadors would counsel their fellow countrymen, “Let us
go speedily to pray before the Lord, and to seek the Lord” (Zechariah 8:21, 22; cf. 1 Kings 8:41-43). They
would send messengers to Israel with the declaration, “We will go with you: for we have heard that God
is with you” (Zechariah 8:23). Nation after nation would “come over” (Isaiah 45:14), that is, “be joined
with” and “cleave to the house of Jacob” (chapter 14:1). The house of God in Jerusalem would eventually
“be called an house of prayer for all people” (chapter 56:7), and “many people and strong nations” would
“come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before” Him “in that day” and be His people
(Zechariah 8:22; 2:11). The “sons of the stranger [or Gentile, 1 Kings 8:41; see on Exodus 12:19, 43]”
would “join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord” (Isaiah 56:6;
Zechariah 2:11). The gates of Jerusalem would be “open continually” to receive the “wealth” contributed
to Israel for the conversion of still other nations and peoples (Isaiah 60:1-11, RSV; Psalms 72:10; Isaiah
45:14; Haggai 2:7, RSV). Eventually, “all the nations” would “call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord” and
“be gathered unto it,” not to “walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart” (Jeremiah 3:17).
“All who ... turned from idolatry to the worship of the true God, were to unite themselves with His
chosen people. As the numbers of Israel increased, they were to enlarge their borders, until their kingdom
should embrace the world” (cf. Daniel 2:35). Thus Israel was to “blossom and bud, and fill the face of the
world with fruit” (Isaiah 27:6).
These promises of prosperity and a successful mission were to have “met fulfillment in large measure
during the centuries following the return of the Israelites from the lands of their captivity. It was God’s
design that the whole earth be prepared for the first advent of Christ, even as to-day the way is preparing
for His second coming”. In spite of Israel’s ultimate failure, a limited knowledge of the true God and of
the Messianic hope was widespread when the Saviour was born (see on Matthew 2:1). If the nation had
been faithful to its trust and had appreciated the high destiny reserved for it by God, the whole earth
would have awaited the coming of the Messiah with eager expectancy. He would have come, He would
have died, and would have risen again. Jerusalem would have become a great missionary center, and the
earth would have been set ablaze with the light of truth in one grand, final appeal to those who had not as
yet accepted the invitation of divine mercy. God’s call to the nations would have been, “Look unto me,
and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 45:22). See on Zechariah 1:8.
Had Jerusalem known what it was her privilege to know, and heeded the light that Heaven sent her, she
would have stood forth in magnificent prosperity, “the queen of kingdoms,” “the mighty metropolis of the
earth”, and would, like a noble vine, have filled “the face of the world with fruit” (Isaiah 27:6). “Had
Israel as a nation preserved her allegiance to Heaven, Jerusalem would have stood forever, the elect of
God” (Jeremiah 7:7; 17:25).
367
After the great final call to the world to acknowledge the true God, those who persisted in refusing
allegiance to Him would unite together with the “evil thought” of laying siege to the city of Jerusalem and
taking it by force of arms, in order to appropriate to themselves the material advantages with which God
had blessed His people (Ezekiel 38:8-12; Jeremiah 25:32; Joel 3:1, 12; Zechariah 12:2-9; 14:2; cf.
Revelation 17:13, 14, 17). During the siege, reprobate Israelites would be slain by their foes (Zechariah
13:8; 14:2). In the prophetic picture God is represented as gathering the nations to Jerusalem (Joel 3:1, 2;
Zephaniah 3:6-8; cf. Ezekiel 38:16, 18-23; 39:1-7). He has a controversy with them because they have
rebelled against His authority (Jeremiah 25:31-33), and He will judge (Joel 3:9-17) and destroy them
there (Isaiah 34:1-8; 63:1-6; 66:15-18). Any “nation and kingdom” that would “not serve” Israel was to
“perish” chapter (60:12). “Those nations that rejected the worship and service of the true God, were to be
dispossessed”, and Israel would “inherit the Gentiles” chapter (54:3).
The earth would thus be rid of those who opposed God (Zechariah 14:12, 13). He would be “king over all
the earth” verses (3, 8, 9), and His dominion “from sea even to sea,” even to “the ends of the earth”
(chapter 9:9, 10). In that day “every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall
even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts” (Zechariah 14:16; cf. chapter 9:7;
Isaiah 66:23).
Israel’s Failure to Carry Out God’s Plan
God provided Israel with “every facility for becoming the greatest nation on the earth”. When they
“brought forth wild grapes” instead of the mature fruit of character, He inquired, “What could have been
done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?” (Isaiah 5:1-7). There was nothing God could have
done for them that He did not do, yet they failed. It was “their unwillingness to submit to the restrictions
and requirements of God” that “prevented them, to a great extent, from reaching the high standard which
He desired them to attain, and from receiving the blessings which He was ready to bestow upon them”.
Those in Israel who put forth their best efforts to cooperate with the revealed will of God realized,
personally, a measure of the benefits He had promised. Thus it had been with Enoch (Genesis 5:24),
Abraham (chapter 26:5), and Joseph (chapter 39:2-6). Thus it was with Moses, of whom, to the very day
of his death, it could be said that “his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated” (Deuteronomy 34:7).
Thus it was with Daniel, “a bright example of what man may become, even in this life, if he will make
God his strength and wisely improve the opportunities and privileges within his reach” (see Daniel 1:8-
20). Thus it was also with Samuel, Elijah, John the Baptist (see on Matthew 3:4), John the Beloved (see
on Mark 3:17), and many others. The life of Christ is a perfect example of the character of God would
have His people develop (see on Luke 2:52). “Higher than the highest human thought can reach is God’s
ideal for His children. Godliness—godlikeness—is the goal to be reached”.
The glorious era of David and Solomon marked what might have been the beginning of Israel’s golden
age). One royal visitor to Jerusalem exclaimed, “The half was not told me!” (1 Kings 10:1-9). The glory
that distinguished the early part of the reign of Solomon was due in part to his own faithfulness during
that time, and in part to the fact that his father David had seemed to appreciate fully Israel’s exalted
privileges and responsibilities (see Psalms 51:10, 11; Isaiah 55:3; cf. Acts 13:22).
368
Before the Israelites entered the Promised Land, God warned them not to forget that the blessings they
were to enjoy there if they cooperated with Him would come as divine gifts (see Deuteronomy 8:7-14),
not primarily as the result of their own wisdom and skill (verses 17-19). Solomon made his great mistake
when he failed to realize the secret of Israel’s prosperity, and with a few noteworthy exceptions, leaders
and people sank lower and lower from generation to generation until apostasy was complete (Isaiah 3:12;
9:16; Jeremiah 5:1-5; 8:10; Ezekiel 22:23-31; Micah 3).
The kingdom was divided following Solomon’s death (see 1 Kings 11:33-38). This division, though
tragic, served to insulate, for a time, the southern kingdom, Judah, from the tide of idolatry that soon
engulfed the northern kingdom, Israel (see Hosea 4:17). In spite of the bold and zealous efforts of such
prophets as Elijah, Elisha, Amos, and Hosea, the northern kingdom rapidly deteriorated and was
eventually carried into Assyrian captivity. Its people were given “no promise of complete restoration to
their former power in Palestine”.
Had Judah remained loyal to God its captivity would not have been necessary. Again and again He had
warned His people that captivity would be the result of disobedience (see Deuteronomy 4:9; 8:9; 28:1, 2,
14, 18; Jeremiah 18:7-10; 26:2-16; Zechariah 6:15; etc.). He had told them that He would progressively
diminish their strength and honor as a nation until they should all be carried away into captivity
(Deuteronomy 28:15-68; 2 Chronicles 36:16, 17). God designed that Israel’s experience should prove to
be a warning to Judah (see Hosea 1:7; 4:15-17; 11:12; Jeremiah 3:3-12; etc.). But Judah failed to learn the
lesson, and a little more than a century later her apostasy, also, was complete (see Jeremiah 22:6, 8, 9;
Ezekiel 16:37; 7:2-15; 12:3-28; 36:18-23). The kingdom was overturned (Ezekiel 21:25-32) and the
people removed from the land, which had been theirs only by virtue of the covenant relationship (Hosea
9:3, 15, Micah 2:10; cf. Hosea 2:6-13). Deported to Babylon, they were to learn in adversity the lessons
they had failed to learn during times of prosperity (Jeremiah 25:5-7; 29:18, 19; 30:11-14; 46:28; Ezekiel
20:25-38; Micah 4:10-12), and to impart to the heathen Babylonians a knowledge of the true God.
God did not forsake His people, even during the Captivity. He would renew His covenant with them
(Jeremiah 31:10-38; Ezekiel 36:21-38; Zechariah 1:12, 17; 2:12), including its accompanying blessings
(Jeremiah 33:3, 6-26; Ezekiel 36:8-15). All that had been promised might yet come to pass if they would
only love and serve Him (Zechariah 6:15; cf. Isaiah 54:7; Ezekiel 36:11; 43:10, 11; Micah 6:8; Zechariah
10:6). According to His beneficent purpose, the covenant promises were to have “met fulfillment in large
measure during the centuries following the return of the Israelites from the lands of their captivity. It was
God’s design that the whole earth be prepared for the first advent of Christ, even as to-day the way is
preparing for His second coming”.
It is important to note that all the Old Testament promises looking forward to a time of restoration for the
Jews were given in anticipation of their return from captivity (see Isaiah 10:24-34; 14:1-7; 27:12, 13; 40:2;
61:4-10; Jeremiah 16:14-16; 23:3-8; 25:11; 29:10-13; 30:3-12; 32:7-27, 37-44; Ezekiel 34:11-15; 37;
Amos 9:10-15; Micah 2:12, 13; etc.). Daniel himself so understood these promises (Daniel 9:1-8).
Captivity, he said, had “confirmed” the “curse” that came because of disobedience (verses 11, 12) and
Jerusalem lay desolate (verses 16-19). Then Gabriel came to reassure him of the restoration of his people
and the eventual coming of the Messiah (verses 24, 25). But, said the angel, Messiah would be rejected
and “cut off,” because of the abominations of Israel, and Jerusalem and the Temple would once more life
waste (verses 26, 27). Between the return from Babylon and the rejection of the Messiah, Israel was to
369
have its second and final opportunity as a nation to cooperate with the divine plan (see Jeremiah 12:14-
17). “Seventy weeks”—490 years of literal time—were “determined” upon the Jews, “to finish the
transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in
everlasting righteousness” (Daniel 9:24).
Eventually, however, it became apparent that the Jews would never measure up to the standard God
required of them, as Malachi makes evident (chapters 1:6, 12; 2:2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17; 3:7, 13, 14).
Formal worship took the place of sincere religion (cf. John 4:23, 24; 2 Tim. 3:5). Human traditions came
to be honored in place of the revealed will of God (see on Mark 7:6-9). Far from becoming the light of the
world, the Jews “shut themselves away from the world as a safeguard against being seduced into idolatry”
(see Deuteronomy 11:26, 27; cf. Mark 7:9). In their meticulous attention to the letter of the law they lost
sight of its spirit. They forgot that God abhors a multiplication of the forms of religion (Isaiah 1:11-18;
Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:7; Malachi 2:13), and asks of man nothing “but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to
walk humbly” with his God (Micah 6:8; cf. Matthew 19:16, 17; 22:36-40). Yet in mercy, God still bore
with His people, and in due time Messiah came (Malachi 3:1-3). To the very last, “Christ would have
averted the doom of the Jewish nation if the people had received Him”. When the probationary period of
490 years ended, the nation was still obdurate and impenitent, and as a result forfeited its privileged role
as His representative on earth.
Why Israel Failed
Israel’s “unwillingness to submit to the restrictions and requirements of God, prevented them, to a great
extent, from reaching the high standard He desired them to attain, and from receiving the blessings He
was ready to bestow upon them”. They cherished the idea that they were favorites of Heaven, and were
ungrateful for the opportunities so graciously afforded them. They forfeited God’s blessing because of
failure to fulfill His purpose in making them His chosen people, and thus brought ruin upon themselves.
When Messiah came, His own people, the Jews, “received him not” (John 1:11). They blindly
“overlooked those scriptures that point to the humiliation of Christ’s first advent, and misapplied those
that speak of the glory of His second coming. Pride obscured their vision [see Luke 19:42]. They
interpreted prophecy in accordance with their selfish desires”, because their ambitious hopes were fixed
on worldly greatness. They looked for Messiah to reign as a temporal prince (cf. Acts 1:6), to appear as a
liberator and conqueror, and to exalt Israel to dominion over all nations (see on Luke 4:19). They would
have no part in all that Christ stood for (see on Matthew 3:2, 3; Mark 3:14). They eagerly sought the
power of His kingdom, but were unwilling to be guided by its principles. They grasped at the material
blessings so generously offered them, but refused the spiritual graces that would have transformed their
lives and fitted them to be His representatives. They brought forth “wild grapes” rather than the mature
fruit of a Godlike character (Isaiah 5:1-7; cf. Galatians 5:19-23), and because of this failure to bear the
fruit expected of them, forfeited their role in the divine plan (see Romans 11:20).
Having declined, thus, to surrender themselves to God as His agents for the salvation of the human race,
the Jews, as a nation, became “agents of Satan” for the destruction of the race. Instead of becoming light
bearers to the world they absorbed its darkness and reflected that darkness instead. They were doing no
positive good; therefore they were doing incalculable harm, and their influence became a savor of death.
370
“In view of the light they had received from God, they were even worse than the heathen, to whom they
felt so much superior”. “They rejected the Light of the world, and henceforth their lives were surrounded
with darkness as the darkness of midnight”.
In these tragic events the words of Moses met their final and complete fulfillment: “As the Lord rejoiced
over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to
bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goes to possess it. And the
Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other”
(Deuteronomy 28:63, 64). The completeness and finality of this rejection is evident from chapter 8:19, 20:
“As the nations which the Lord destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be
obedient unto the voice of the Lord your God.” The rejection of Jesus by the leaders of Israel (cf. Isaiah
3:12; 9:16) meant the permanent, irrevocable cancellation of their special standing before God as a nation
(cf. Jeremiah 12:14-16).
At the time of the Babylonian captivity God had specifically announced that that experience was not to
mark “a full end” of Israel as God’s people (Jeremiah 4:27; 5:18; 46:28). But when the Jews rejected
Christ there was no such assurance of reinstatement. The present-day return of the Jews to Palestine and
the establishment of the modern state of Israel do not imply reinstatement as God’s people, present or
future. Whatever the Jews, as a nation, may do, now or in time to come, is in no way related to the former
promises made to them. With the crucifixion of Christ they forever forfeited their special position as
God’s chosen people. Any idea that the return of the Jews to their ancestral home, that is, to the new state
of Israel, may in any way be related to Bible prophecy is without valid scriptural foundation. It ignores
the plain statements of the Old Testament that God’s promises to Israel were all conditional.
The Nature and Purpose of Conditional Prophecy
God’s word is sure (Isaiah 40:8; 55:11; Romans 11:29), and His plan for the salvation of man will
ultimately prevail (Isaiah 46:10). With Him there is “no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James
1:17). He is “the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8). His word “endureth for ever”
(1 Peter 1:25). Eventually God’s purposes will prevail and the plan of salvation will succeed, irrespective
of the failure of any person or group. The plan itself never changes because God never changes. But the
manner in which it is carried out may change because man may change. The fickle, human will is the
weak, unstable factor in conditional prophecy. God may reject one nation or group of people in favor of
another if those first summoned persistently refuse to cooperate with Him (see Jeremiah 18:6-10; cf.
Daniel 5:25-28; Matthew 21:40-43; 22:3-10; Luke 14:24). For illustrations of the reversal of threatened
judgment, see Jonah 3:3-10; cf. 2 Kings 20:1-5; and of promised blessing, see Exodus 6:2-8; cf. Numbers
14:26-34. The covenant with literal Israel proved faulty, not because God failed to carry out His part of
the covenant, but rather because Israel’s fair promises proved evanescent as the morning dew (Hosea 6:4;
13:3; Hebrews 8:6, 7). It should be remembered that God does not force the human will, and that Israel’s
cooperation was essential to the success of His plan for the nation.
God’s promises are made conditional upon man’s cooperation and obedience. “The promises and
threatenings of God are alike conditional”. Again and again God warned Israel that blessing goes hand in
hand with obedience and that a curse accompanies disobedience (see Deuteronomy 4:9; 8:19; 28:1, 2, 13,
371
14; Jeremiah 18:6-10; 26:2-6; Zechariah 6:15; etc.). Continued obedience was necessary to the
continuance of divine favor, whereas persistent disobedience must inevitably culminate in the rejection of
the Jewish nation as God’s chosen instrument for carrying out the divine plan (Deuteronomy 28:15-68).
Owing to the failure of the Jews as God’s chosen people, many of the prophecies of the Old Testament,
such as those affirming the worldwide mission of Israel and the ingathering of the Gentiles (see Genesis
12:3; Deuteronomy 4:6-8; Isaiah 2:2-5; 42:6; 49:6; 52:10; 56:6, 7; 60:1-3; 61:9; 62:2; Zechariah 2:11;
8:22, 23; etc.), those pointing forward to the eternal rest in Canaan (Isaiah 11:6-9; 35; 65:17-25; 66:20-23;
Jeremiah 17:25; Ezekiel 37; 40-48; Zechariah 2:6-12; 14:4-11), and those promising deliverance from her
enemies (Isaiah 2:10-21; 24-26; Ezekiel 38; 39; Joel 3; Zephaniah 1; 2; Zechariah 9:9-17; 10-14; etc.),
have never been and can never be fulfilled to them as a nation.
Had Israel measured up to the noble ideal, all of the promises contingent upon obedience would long
since have been fulfilled. Predictions of national disgrace, rejection, and woe that were to result from
apostasy would never have been realized. But because of apostasy it was the predictions of national honor
and glory that could not be fulfilled. Yet, since God’s purposes are immutable (Psalms 33:11; Prov. 19:21;
Isaiah 46:10; Acts 5:39; Hebrews 6:17; etc.), success must and will come—through Israel after the spirit.
Though, on the whole, literal Israel failed to realize her exalted destiny, the chosen race did make a
worth-while, though imperfect, contribution to the preparation of the world for the first advent of the
Messiah (see on Matthew 2:1). Furthermore, it should be remembered that the Messiah, after the flesh,
was a Jew, that the charter members of the Christian church were all Jews, and that Christianity grew out
of Judaism.
Spiritual Israel Replaces Literal Israel
The formal rejection of Jesus by the Jews, as a nation, marked the close of their last opportunity as the
special agents of God for the salvation of the world. It was “last of all” that God “sent unto them his son,”
according to Christ’s own words (Matthew 21:37), but they “caught him” and “slew him” (verse 39).
Thereafter, God “let out his vineyard [see Isaiah 5:1-7] unto other husbandmen” who would “render him
the fruits in their seasons” (see on Matthew 21:41). Upon His final departure from the sacred precincts of
the Temple, Jesus said, “Your house is left unto you desolate” (Matthew 23:38). The day, before, He had
called it “my house” (chapter 21:13), but henceforth He no longer owned it as His. Jesus’ own verdict was,
“The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”
(Matthew 21:43; cf. 1 Peter 2:9, 10).
The transition from literal Israel to spiritual Israel, or the Christian church, is the subject of Romans 9-11.
Here Paul affirms that the rejection of the Jews did not mean that the promises of God had “taken none
effect” (Romans 9:6), and explains immediately that they are to become effective through spiritual Israel.
He quotes Hosea 2:23. “I will call them my people, which were not my people” (Romans 9:25, 26).
Spiritual Israel includes both Jews and Gentiles (verse 24). Peter concurs, saying, “Of a truth I perceive
that God is no respecter of persons,” for “in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness,
is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34, 35; cf. chapter 11:18). Many years later, in writing to the “strangers,”
or Gentiles (1 Peter 1:1: see on Exodus 12:19, 43), as the “elect” of God (1 Peter 1:2), Peter refers to them
as the “chosen” ones of God, a “holy nation, a peculiar people” (chapter 2:9), formerly “not a people,” but
“now the people of God” (verse 10). Paul states the same truth in Romans 9:30, 31, where he makes it
372
plain that the Christian church has replaced the Hebrew nation in the divine plan. Henceforth, he says,
there is no difference between “Jew” and “Greek” (chapter 10:12, 13).
Paul emphasizes the fact that the rejection of literal Israel as God’s chosen instrument for the salvation of
the world does not mean that individual Jews can no longer be saved (chapters 9:6; 11:1, 2, 11, 15), for he
is a Jew himself (chapters 9:3; 10:1; 11:1, 2). But they are to be saved as Christians and not as Jews. It is
true, he says, that national Israel “stumbled” at the “stumblingstone,” Jesus Christ (Romans 9:32, 33;
11:11; cf. 1 Peter 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 1:23) but this need not mean that they are to fall—‘God forbid,” he
exclaims (Romans 11:1, 22). Literal Jews may still find salvation by being grafted into spiritual Israel, in
precisely the same way that Gentiles are to be grafted in (verses 23, 24). “All Israel” consists of both Jews
and Gentiles, thus “all Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:25, 26). Paul makes it clear beyond argument
that when he speaks of “Israel” as the chosen people of God he means it in this sense. He says specifically
that by “Jew” he does not mean a literal Jew but one converted at heart, whether he be Jew or Gentile
(chapter 2:28, 29). All who have faith in Christ are one in Him, and, as a the spiritual “seed” of Abraham,
are “heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:9, 28, 29).
“That which God purposed to do for the world through Israel, the chosen nation, He will finally
accomplish through His church on earth to-day”. The glorious promises originally made to literal Israel
are meeting their fulfillment today in the proclamation of the gospel to all men (Revelation 14:6, 7). “The
blessings thus assured to Israel are, on the same conditions and in the same degree, assured to every
nation and to every individual under the broad heavens”. “The church in this generation has been
endowed by God with great privileges and blessings, and He expects corresponding returns. ... In the
lives of God’s people the truths of His word are to reveal their glory and excellence. Through His people
Christ is to manifest His character and the principles of His kingdom’. Now it is spiritual Israel, in the
past “not a people” but “now the people of God,” that are to “shew forth the praises” of the One who has
called them “out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Peter 2:9, 10).
We should never forget that “whatsoever things were written aforetime were written” for the “learning”
of future generations to the end of time, to inspire patience, comfort, and hope (Romans 15:4). They were
“written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1 Corinthians 10:11).
The prophets did not always clearly understand messages they themselves had borne pointing forward to
the distant future, to the coming of the Messiah (1 Peter 1:10, 11). These repeated Messianic predictions
were designed to lift the eyes of the people from the transitory events of their own time to the coming of
Messiah and the establishment of His eternal kingdom, in order to afford them a view of the things of
time in the light of eternity. However, these messages pertaining to the then-distant future were intended,
not only to inspire patience, comfort, and hope in the day they were first given, but also to provide men of
Christ’s day with confirming evidence of His Messiahship. The profound conviction that the messages of
the prophets had been fulfilled led many to believe in Christ as the Son of God. The prophets thus
provided a firm foundation for the faith of the apostolic church and made a direct and vital contribution to
the Christian faith.
It was therefore not alone “unto themselves” and to their contemporaries that the prophets ministered, but
also to all sincere men and women of later generations (1 Peter 1:12). It is ever the privilege of those who
witness the fulfillment of prophecy to “remember” and “believe” (John 13:19; 14:29; John 16:4).
Prophecies that Inspiration clearly applies to our day were designed of God to inspire us with patience,
373
comfort, and the hope that all things foretold by these holy men of old will soon meet their final and
complete fulfillment.
Conclusion: Principles of Interpretation
In general, Old Testament promises and predictions were addressed to literal Israel and were to have been
fulfilled to them, conditional on obedience. Partial compliance on their part with the will of God made
possible a partial fulfillment of the covenant promises on God’s part. Yet many of the promises,
particularly those concerning the giving of the gospel to the nations and the establishment of the
Messianic kingdom, could not be fulfilled to them because of their unfaithfulness, but would be fulfilled
to the church on earth preparatory to Christ’s return, particularly to God’s remnant people, and in the new
earth.
When the Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah, God in turn rejected them and commissioned the Christian
church as His chosen instrument for the salvation of the world (Matthew 28:19, 20; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20;
1 Peter 2:9, 10; etc.). Accordingly, the covenant promises and privileges were all permanently transferred
from literal to spiritual Israel (Romans 9:4; cf. Galatians 3:27-29; see on Deuteronomy 18:15). Promises
not already fulfilled to literal Israel either would never be fulfilled at all or would be fulfilled to the
Christian church as spiritual Israel. Prophecies that fall into the latter classification are to be fulfilled in
principle but not necessarily in every detail, owing to the fact that many details of prophecy were
concerned with Israel as a literal nation situated in the land of Palestine. The Christian church is a
spiritual “nation” scattered all over the world, and such details obviously could not apply to it in a literal
sense. Prophecies of the former classification cannot now be fulfilled because they were strictly
conditional in nature and limited in scope, by their very nature, to literal Israel.
The fundamental principle by which we can tell unerringly when any particular promise or prediction of
the Old Testament made originally to literal Israel is to meet its fulfillment with respect to spiritual Israel
is—when a later inspired writer makes such an application of it. For instance, the prophecy of the battle of
Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38, 39 was never fulfilled to literal Israel; but John the revelator assures us
that in principle, though not necessarily in all details (such as those of Ezekiel 39:9-15), this battle will
occur at the close of the millennium (Revelation 20:7-9). But to go beyond that which is clearly set forth
by Inspiration—in the immediate context of the passage concerned, in the New Testament, or in the Spirit
of prophecy—is to substitute personal opinion for a plain “Thus saith the Lord.” Where Inspiration has
not thus clearly spoken it is our privilege to compare scripture with scripture in an endeavor to understand
more perfectly the mind of the Spirit. But here, as in all exposition of Scripture, we should avoid
affirming as the explicit teachings of the Bible that which is our private, finite view, however plausible it
may appear to be. Furthermore, Old Testament prophecy must first be examined in terms of its historical
application to literal Israel before the validity of a derived application to spiritual Israel may be
undertaken.
One of the main objectives of the Bible commentator is to reconstruct the historical setting in which the
declarations of the prophets were originally made. Christianity is a historical religion, and its inspired
messages are anchored to the hills and valleys, the deserts and rivers, of the ancient world, and to literal
374
men and women who once walked the earth. There is no surer protection against the speculative vagaries
of religious visionaries than a clear knowledge of the historical context of Scripture.
Though the prophet looked at events about him, he also could see far beyond his own day. In a mysterious
way known only to God the prophet’s words were sometimes intended to meet their fulfillment in the
then far-distant future. At times they had an import, not only for the age in which the prophet lived, but
also for a day far future; in other words, they had a dual application. Similarly, the ways in which God
dealt with men in crises of the past are often cited as examples of the manner in which He will deal with
all the world in the last day (see on Deuteronomy 18:15). For example, the judgment that came upon
Sodom and Gomorrah, literal cities of the ancient past, is used by Bible writers as descriptive of the
judgment God will eventually bring upon all the world.
The student of the Bible who hopes to secure from it the greatest help will first proceed to reconstruct the
historical context of each passage. He will listen to the prophet speaking to Israel of old and endeavor to
understand what his words meant to the people who originally heard them. But he will listen also for the
further import the prophet’s words may have for later times, particularly, our time. Indeed, this secondary
application is for us today the more significant. But it is only against the background of the original
historical context of the message that its meaning and value for us can be established with certainty.
A study of the Old Testament prophets that consists primarily of lifting selected passages here and there
out of their historical context and arbitrarily applying them to our day—as if the prophet spoke
exclusively for our benefit—is fraught with grave danger. In fact, this procedure is responsible more than
anything else for the fanciful interpretations that distinguish the teachings of certain religious groups.
In an age when every wind of doctrine is blowing it is well to make certain that our understanding of
Bible prophecy rests upon a positive “Thus saith the Lord” (see Deuteronomy 29:29; Isaiah 50:11;
Jeremiah 2:13; Matthew 7:24-28; 1 Corinthians 2:4, 5, 12, 13; Eph. 4:14; Colossians 2:2-4, 8; 2 Peter
1:16; Revelation 22:18). In so doing we shall be secure against the fanciful explanations sometimes given
certain Old Testament prophecies. We shall be protected against the grossly literal explanation of some
expositors concerning the return of literal Israel to literal Palestine to rule the world for a thousand years
prior to the close of human probation, and also against other equally unscriptural interpretations that
propose to apply allegorically to the church all the details of the promises originally made to literal Israel.
Both of these extreme methods wrest the obvious intent of the Scriptures and render a sound
understanding of the messages of the prophets for the church today unattainable.
The following simple rules are suggested as a safe approach to the study of each prophetic passage of the
Old Testament:
1. Examine the prophecy in its entirety. Note by whom it was spoken, to whom it was addressed, and the
circumstances that called it forth. Remember that—generally speaking—it was originally given with
respect to the historical circumstances that called it forth. It was ordained of God to meet the needs of His
people at the time it was given and to remind them of the glorious destiny that awaited them as a nation,
of the coming of the Messiah, and of the establishment of His eternal kingdom. Discover what the
message meant to the people of that time. (This rule does not apply to those portions of the book of
Daniel that the prophet was bidden to “shut up” and “seal,” or to other passages whose application
Inspiration may have limited exclusively to our own time.)
375
2. Observe the conditional aspects of the prediction and ascertain whether or not, or to what extent, the
conditions were met.
3. Discover what application later inspired writers make of the prophecy, and on this basis determine its
possible significance for God’s people in this time.
4. Remember that the record of God’s dealings with His people in ages past has been recorded for the
benefit of all later generations to the end of time. Our study of messages originally proclaimed by holy
men of old to the people of their day is not to become an end in itself, but a means of discovering the will
of God for all who would render Him truehearted service now, at the climax of the ages. The voice of
God through the prophets distinctly speaks to us today.
If these rules are consistently followed the resulting interpretation can be accepted with confidence. In the
inspired utterances of the prophets of old the sincere seeker for truth will thus find messages of inspiration,
comfort, and guidance for today.
376
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
THE TIME PERIOD BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS
Introduction
Between the close of the Old Testament and the beginning of the narrative of the New Testament
stretches a period of approximately four centuries. An understanding of the vicissitudes through which the
Jews passed during this time, with special emphasis on their history under the later Seleucid rulers and
during the years that witnessed the rise of Roman power in the Mediterranean, is necessary to a proper
appreciation of the New Testament, particularly the Gospels. This chapter summarizes briefly the
experiences of the Jews under the waning power of Persia and during the protracted struggle for control
of the Palestine between the Seleucids to the north and the Ptolemies to the south. More detailed
consideration is given to developments growing out of attempts by Antiochus Epiphanes to Hellenize the
Jews, to the extension of Roman power throughout the Mediterranean world, and to the political situation
in Palestine under the Hasmonaeans and under the Herod the Great.
The Jews Under the Persians During the 4th Century
Nehemiah and After - Historical records of the Jews during the 5th century B.C. have been scanty, but
extra-Biblical evidence is gradually coming to light. According to the Elephantine papyri Johanan was
high priest in 410 B.C. and a Persian by the name of Bagoas (Bagoses, Bagohi, Bigvai) was appointed
governor of Judea at least by 407 B.C. (Olmstead thinks he was Nehemiah’s successor).
This Bagoas, mentioned in the Elephantine papyri as the governor of Judea in the days of Sanballat (and
therefore of Nehemiah), lived nearly a century earlier than the eunuch Bagoas who was a commander of
Artaxerxes III against Egypt and who later became Persia’s kingmaker. It is possible to harmonize the
incidents connected with Nehemiah’s governorship, involving several men who later became high priests,
and the statements of Josephus about Bagoas and Johanan, etc.
The Persians did not interfere with the Jewish religion, although the Zoroastrians, to whom fire was
sacred, felt it was a desecration to burn flesh in the flames. This may possibly be one of the reasons why
Bagoas had put a fine of 50 drachmas on every lamb offered on the Temple altar in Jerusalem, although
the quarrel with the Jewish high priest would seem a sufficient reason. In Egypt the Jews of Elephantine
offered sacrifices in their temple until it was destroyed by the Egyptians. In the Egypt the Persian dislike
of animal sacrifices would be supported by the Egyptians, who worshiped some of the animals offered by
the Jews in Elephantine. When the local ruler was absent, therefore, the Egyptians destroyed this Jewish
temple. It lay in ruins for some time while the Jews sought, first through Johanan, then through Bagoas,
for permission to rebuild. Bagoas, in giving this permission, authorized only meal offerings and incense
for the new temple.
377
Dangers to the Jewish Religion - The returned Jews during the reign of Artaxerxes I were probably
acquainted with the teaching of Zoroastrianism, since it was the official religion of the Persian Empire.
Nehemiah and other leaders probably realized the necessity of exercising care lest the common people
confuse the worship of Jehovah with that of Ahura-Mazda. Both Persians and Jews believed that there
would come a great judgment day, when the God of righteousness would vanquish the adversary of all
good, and that then the righteous would be given a blessed abode under new conditions.
The Persians arranged their two opposing spirits, the righteous Ahura-Mazda, and the evil Ahriman, in a
dualism that tended to make them equal. The Jews, through their sacred literature, spoke much of one
eternal all-powerful God, and very little of a distinctly inferior evil adversary who had at one time been
created perfect (Ezekiel 28:14-19), but who later became the author of all sin.
A Rival Religion in Samaria - The Jews returning to Jerusalem were opposed when they tried to set up
standards of worship at variance with the popular concepts of the half-pagan peoples who had settled in
the land during the Captivity. Thinking of them as narrow and bigoted fanatics, Sanballat and Tobiah
made every effort to thwart their plans. A son of Joiada the priest was banished by Nehemiah because of
his marriage to the daughter of Sanballat. This may have been the Manasseh mentioned by Josephus (see
on Nehemiah 13:28, 29), whom Sanballat of Samaria welcomed and made priest of a rival Samaritan
temple on Mt. Gerizim. The result was a rival Samaritan cult, which is mentioned in the New Testament
(John 4:20), and still survives in a remnant numbering a few hundred souls.
The Development of Jewish Tradition - Such opposition as that of the Samaritans gave great impetus to
the study and exaltation of the Torah (Pentateuch) on the part of the Jews, who set about strictly enforcing
all its requirements. Synagogues were established throughout the land. Readings from the Scriptures,
presented in the Sabbath services, were translated or explained in Aramaic, which had become, during the
Exile, the spoken language of the people. Through these explanations the rabbis guided the minds of the
laity in what were considered proper interpretations of the Torah.
Under such conditions it was not at all strange that a body of traditional interpretation of the Scriptures
gradually grew up, although the leaders disagreed among themselves on points of doctrine and procedure.
Revived Jewish nationalism had driven them to study their sacred books, but they became confused as to
the correct meaning of Scripture.
Instead of laying aside their preconceived opinions and letting the Spirit of God guide them into all truth,
they hewed out for themselves broken cisterns of error from which to drink. These false concepts paved
the way for the rejection of Christ by the leaders of His day. Here were laid the foundations of a complex
body of tradition that was to dominate Jewish religion through subsequent centuries.
The Tradition of Jaddua and Alexander - For the reigns of Artaxerxes II (Mnemon), 405/04—359/58
B.C., and Artaxerxes III (Ochus), 359/58—338/37, when Johanan and Jaddua were high priests, there are
few records concerning the Jews. Without doubt antagonism continued.
Josephus mentions an incident connected with the campaign of Alexander, which, though many scholars
label it unhistorical, is here given because of its possible bearing on Daniel’s prophecy of Greece, and
because it is not inherently impossible if an early date for Daniel is accepted.
378
The story goes (Josephus Antiquities xi. 8. 4, 5 [325—339]) that from Tyre Alexander went to Jerusalem
en route to Egypt and was shown the prophecy of Daniel (probably chapter 8:21); that he was so
impressed by it that he granted the Jews great favors, not only for themselves but also for their kinsfolk in
lands he might conquer in the future. It is true that Josephus, referring to Sanballat and Darius III as
contemporaries, confuses this story with the one about the marriage of Sanballat’s daughter to a son of
Joiada (Nehemiah 13:28), but it is not impossible that this or another Jaddua was high priest in
Alexander’s time and that such an incident could have occurred. God could direct Alexander as easily as
He could Cyrus in the days of Daniel.
Another incident led to Alexander’s bestowal of favors on the Jews. The Samaritan leaders burned to
death the governor, Andromachus, whom Alexander had stationed in Samaria to administer all Coele-
Syria and Palestine. Upon his return from Egypt, Alexander avenged this outrage, gave certain border
territory claimed by Samaria to the Jews, and granted them other privileges.
Rise of the Greeks and Macedonians
The Greek Background - Historically, the peoples living in Greece, on the islands of the Aegean Sea,
and on the west coast of Asia Minor formed part of the successive waves of Indo-European peoples who
came from the north east in the 2d millennium B.C. (see on Daniel 2:39). By the close of the 6th century a
democratic form of city-state government was developed in Greece.
Each city was a direct, not a representative, democracy, in which all citizens met to vote on all issues.
This was possible because each body of citizens was small (slaves and “strangers” of non-native descent,
who had no political or social standing, formed the majority). These small, independent Greek states,
which were developing democratic principles of administration, eventually challenged the autocratic
power of Persia.
The Persian War With Greece - The Ionian Greek settlements on the eastern coast of the Aegean Sea,
formerly under Lydia, were incorporated into the Persian Empire along with Lydia, though it took many
years to reduce them to Persian control. Half a century after Cyrus the aid furnished to the revolting
Ionians by the European Greeks evoked the vengeance of Persia.
The city-states in Greece, which had proved themselves incapable of any long-term concerted action
because of bitter jealousies and intrigues, where thus driven to work together in the face of the Persian
threat. The campaigns of Darius I and Xerxes against the Greeks ended in failure, first at Marathon in 490
B.C., later, in 480, at Salamis, and, in 479, at Plataea (see on Daniel 11:2).
About the same time, the Persians suffered serious losses at Mycale on the Ionian coast. Thus Greece was
saved from the Persian Empire, and the Greeks of Ionia (the Aegean Islands and the west coast of Asia
Minor) joined in a defensive league with the Athens and other Greek city-states that had participated in
the Persian defeat.
This period of Athenian leadership was the Golden Age of Greek culture. In 431 began the Peloponnesian
War, which spanned more than 25 years, in which Athens and Sparta struggled for supremacy and both
379
were supplanted by Thebes. This war weakened the Greek states still further and gave Persia an
opportunity to play off Greek against Greek.
Alexander’s Conquest of the Persian Empire
i vith clio de &)
ent of Alexander's Empire
mp asi 1'% P i ,
While Greece proper was embroiled in conflict the semi-Greek country of Macedonia to the north became
a monarchical state and sought to expand its territory. About the time that Artaxerxes III (Ochus) became
king of Persia, 23-year-old Philip II came to the throne of Macedonia and started the formation of a
national army. He soon gained supremacy over nearly all of Greece. But before his plan for a united
Greek-Macedonian attack on Persia could be executed, Philip was assassinated.
Alexander the Great - Philip left the torch of conquest to be carried by his 20-year-old son, Alexander
the Great (see on Daniel 2:39; 7:6). Within two years of his accession Alexander was able to secure the
backing of all Greece and Macedonia in an alliance against the Persian Empire. With his Macedonian
army he pushed eastward around the Aegean, crossed the Hellespont, and won his first important battle at
the Granicus River (334). He then rapidly deprived Persia of her source of revenue from all Asia Minor.
Darius, coming up the Euphrates, met him at Issus, near the north eastern corner of the Mediterranean.
There the Persians were routed (333). Alexander next pushed on through Syria and Palestine, taking all
380
the main cities (in 332 Tyre stood a seven-month siege). He marched toward Egypt, assured of a warm
reception, for that country had despised Persian control since the days when their cities and temples had
been so ruthlessly destroyed. Gladly the Egyptians threw their gates open to Alexander as their liberator
(332) and crowned him as Pharaoh. He, in turn, joined them in their worship of Egyptian deities. Egypt
acclaimed him as a god and offered him worship as the true son of Amen-Ra. He founded Alexandria and
then returned, in the spring of 331, through Syria to push on eastward.
Crossing the Euphrates and the Tigris, he met Darius and his army in October, 331, on the plain of
Gaugamela in a battle more popularly known by the name of the neighboring town of Arbela. Here the
Persian forces met a disastrous defeat, Darius himself fleeing to Ecbatana in Media. Then in rapid
succession came the surrender of Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis. After burning Persepolis, Alexander
started to Ecbatana in pursuit of Darius, early in 330, only to find that he had escaped to the east. Pursuing
farther, Alexander found only the corpse of the great king, who had been slain by his own men.
He gave Darius a royal burial, and then proceeded with his expedition, going as far as the Jaxartes and
Indus rivers during the next three years. In 326 he crossed the Indus and penetrated northern India as far
as his men would follow him, then returned via the coast (325) to Susa, where celebrations were held at
the founding of a new world monarchy (324) designed to fuse East and West through Greek civilization.
To cement the union of Greek and Persian peoples, Alexander and some of his Macedonian officers took
Persian wives. He founded many Greek cities over the vast empire. In 323 the king was in Babylon to
supervise the organization of an Arabian expedition, and while there contracted a fever that proved fatal.
He died June 13, 323 B.C., having reigned in Philip’s place for slightly less than 13 years.
While changing the face of the world in so short a time he had not tried to change the religion of his
conquered peoples. Persian Zoroastrianism continued, and has lived on through the centuries. The
Egyptians, the Jews, the Greeks, kept their religions. But the thinking of mankind in the whole
Mediterranean world was affected by the spread of Hellenic (See NOTE) ideas and by Alexander’s
concept of a world empire of united races and peoples with a common language, literature, and culture.
The Hellenistic] period, ushered in by Alexander, paved the way for the Greco-Roman civilization, in
which Judaism was modified and Christianity developed into a worldwide faith.
NOTE: The adjective Hellenistic means “Greek,” referring to the history or culture of Greece. Hellenistic refers to the fusion of
Hellenic and Oriental civilization initiated by Alexander. The Hellenistic period extended to the time of Roman supremacy.
Alexander’s Successors and the Dissolution of His Kingdom
Alexander’s Heirs Under Regents - The administration of the Persian territory just conquered was not
easy task. Alexander’s generals agreed to place on the throne Philip Arrhidaeus, the feeble-minded half
brother of Alexander, as joint king with the infant Alexander, son of the Bactrian princess Roxana, born
after his father’s death. Macedonian leaders (mostly Alexander’s generals) were appointed as governors
throughout the empire. The conflicting interests of the generals, of Alexander’s widow Roxana, of his
mother Olympias, and of partisans of Philip Arrhidaeus led to a decade of wars and intrigue.
Antigonus Makes Strongest Bid for Empire - In the long and complex struggle for power among
numerous contending “successors,” the issues tended to center in the attempt of Antigonus to gain and
381
keep the power for himself. His chief opponents—Cassander in Macedonia, Ptolemy in Egypt, and
Lysimachus in Thrace—formed an alliance proposed by Seleucus. After the struggle reached a stalemate
in 312-311 B.C., the settlement of 311 left the principal territories of the empire in the hands of these five
leaders. The next decade was filled with confusion of all kinds. Cassander put to death the child-king
Alexander and his mother Roxana. For the attempt of Antigonus to win the whole empire for himself and
for his ensuing struggle against Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus. This struggle came to a
climax in 301 at the decisive battle at Ipsus in Phrygia, which the four allies won. Antigonus was slain
and his territory divided.
The Fourthfold Division of the Empire - Thus, in 301, the question of a united empire versus separate
kingdoms was settled. The strongest bid for unity had failed. In place of Alexander’s one empire there
were four independent Macedonian kingdoms, plus minor fragments (chiefly in Asia Minor). Seleucus’
territory extended from Asia Minor nearly to the Indus, with capitals at Antioch on the Orontes, in Syria,
and Seleucia on the Tigris, near the present city of Baghdad. Ptolemy of Egypt had regained gained the
districts of Palestine and southern Syria. Lysimachus had not only Thrace but also a large portion of north
western Asia Minor. Cassander held Macedonia and was busy trying to consolidate all of Greece.
Demetrius’ scattered holdings could not be considered a fifth kingdom.
The Hellenestic Kingdoms
It would be profitless to follow the rivalries, wars, and intrigues between these Hellenistic kingdoms and
the family quarrels of their Macedonian ruling houses, whose complex intermarriages and changing
alliances confuse the picture with similar names and petty details. A mere outline of the principal
developments must suffice, to show how the four kingdoms became three and later fell one by one to
Rome.
Lysimachus’ Kingdom Eliminated - Not many years after the battle at Ipsus, in 301, Lysimachus gained
control of two of the four divisions of the empire as they had been settled upon in 301—the western and
the northern. But Lysimachus was defeated and killed in a war with Seleucus in 281, after which Ptolemy
Ceraunus snatched the fruits of victory from the winner. In 280 he assassinated the victorious Seleucus,
and seized Macedonia. Thus, although Seleucus briefly held the title to three of the four divisions, he
actually never occupied Macedonia. His death left his son Antiochus I with what had been territories of
Seleucus and Lysimachus. Macedonia was ruled by the house of Antigonus for more than a century, until
it became a protectorate of Rome at the close of the third Macedonian war in 168 B.C., and finally a
province of Rome in 146.
The Four Kingdoms Reduced to Three - Thus within about 40 years after Alexander’s death, and 20
years after the division at Ipsus, his vast territory had passed through the hands of many claimants. Now,
all the empire, except minor fragments, was under the control of three dynasties of Macedonian blood.
The house of Ptolemy ruled Egypt; the house of Antigonus, replacing that of Cassander, had taken over
Macedonia; the house of Seleucus held the east and the former territory of Lysimachus in the north.
In 279 the invading Gauls, an eastern wave of the barbarians well known by that name in Roman history,
entered Macedonia and Greece, whence they were driven out. Some of them overran large parts of Asia
Minor. Harbored by local kings who wished to harass the rulers of the Seleucid line, they plundered the
382
country for many years and extorted tribute. Finally after nearly half a century they were decisively
defeated by the ruler of Pergamum, which later became the most important of the small states that grew
out of fragments of Lysimachus’ empire. Henceforth these Gauls were confined to the region of Asia
Minor that took its name, Galatia, from them. This later became the Roman province in which Paul
founded various churches and to which he wrote the epistle to the Galatians.
Although these small states retained their separate existence, nearly all the territory of Alexander’s empire
remained under the three strong Hellenistic kingdoms, Macedonia, Egypt, and the Seleucid empire (the
last is often called Syria, because Antioch became its principal capital and its territory later shrank to
Syria alone). These three kingdoms dominated the eastern Mediterranean until they were absorbed
successively as provinces of the Roman Empire. Accordingly, many brief histories omit mention of the
earlier fourfold division of Alexander’s empire and refer only to the final stage of three kingdoms.
Palestine, situated on the corridor between Egypt and the Seleucid empire, remained for many years a
bone of contention between “the king of the south” and “the king of the north.” Hence the Ptolemies of
Egypt and the Seleucid kings are more important to Biblical studies than Macedonia. Palestine was under
the Ptolemies until about 200 B.C., when it fell to Seleucid control.
Hellenistic ruling Houses 300 - 30 B.C. Hellenistic ruling Houses
nie ares House of Antigonus House of Ptolemy House of Seleucus
(Macedonia) (Egypt) (Seleucid Empire, or Syria)
with Ptolemy | Soter, - 283 Seleucus | Nicator, - 280
Ptolemy | Philadelphus, 285 - 246 Ridschis Soke Rae
cg Soret per 279
Antigonus Il, 277{276?) - 239 IT Berenice fmm Antiochus Il Theos, 261 - 246 np Laodice
300
280
260
240 Demetrius (the fair)
220
200
wa t239% 29)) Ptolemy Ill Euergetes, 246 - 221 Seleucus Il Callinicus, : 226 |
Antigonus |Ii, 229 - 221 | 229 - 221
Antiochus Ill The Great, 223 - 187 | Seleucus Ill Soter, 226 - 223
enemy ee IV Philopator, 221 - 203
ee ee 203 - 180 pm(F pee Cleopatra |
Punic
218 - 201 wo First
ne catenin ir War 215-205 Philip V. 221 - 179
180 Perseus, 179 - 168 Seleucus IV Philopator, 187 - 175
by War whore ote congo LESONS YN ESOT, 160211350) Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 175 - 164/63 |
bal Demetrius I Soter, 162/61 - 150) Antiochus V Eupator, 164/63 - 162/61
140 149 - “a War ty 148 Alexander Balas, Usurper, 150 - 145
Demetrius Il Nicator, 146 - 139; 129 - 126/25
a ha Greet co tesadanta:s Reman Prolemy Vil Physcon, 145-116 | Antiochus VI Dionysus, 145 - 142 Antiochus Vil Sidetes, |39/38 - 129
' ) ara a MRE
Antiochus Vill Grypus, 126/125- 96] Seleucus V, 125)
i}
107 - 86 Prolemy Vill Lathyrus, 116 - 108, 88 - 80
100 Poe Meee 108 - 88 Antiochus [IX Philopator Cyzicenus, 113 - 95
Seleucus Vi. 96 - 95 | Philip 1, 92-83 | | Demetrius il, 95 - 88)
xempeehiins oa Antiochus Xi, 92 | | Antiochus Xil, 87-84) Antiochus X, 95 - 83
‘Crassus and Pompey Consuls, 70 Ptolemy X! Auletes, 80 - St
80
60 First Triumvirate, 60 Pompey Philip Il, 65 - 64 |
Caesar Dictator, 49 — SL Prolemy Xil, $1 - 47) od
o Somos
30
Antiochus XIil Asiaticus, ales
Triumvirate, 43 Ry eee - 302} Cleopatra Vil Thea Philopator, 48 - 30 Prolemy Xill, 47 - 44 a
Lepidus Egypt a Roman Province; Rome in full control of Near East by 30 B.C.
Octavian Augustus 27 B.C. - AD. 14)
Ptolemy II Philadelphus and Antiochus I and II - Ptolemy II Philadelphus hoped to take Syria and
make it, along with Palestine, a buffer state against aggression from the Seleucid empire. In 272 B.C. he
forced Seleucus’ successor, Antiochus I (280—262/61), (See NOTE) to give him control of much of the
coastal lands in Asia Minor and Syria. For another decade Ptolemy aided Greece in its unsuccessful effort
against Macedonian rule; then he signed a peace treaty with Antigonus II of Macedonia.
383
NOTE: After the death of Seleucus I his successors continued numbering the years from his reign instead of renumbering the
years of each separate reign. Events were recorded in years of an era that began with the reign of Seleucus I, that is, from the
campaign during which he retook Babylon in 312 B.C. This Seleucid Era was in contemporary use during the period of the
Seleucid kings, and down into early Christian times—even much later among the Jews. Such a continuous reckoning of years was
a new departure in Asian chronology, greatly facilitating the accuracy of historical dating. Later the Greeks used the Olympiads
and the Romans the A.U.C. (ab urbe condita, “from the founding of the city”), but these were employed only by historians, not in
ordinary dating.
The year I of the Seleucid Era was, in the official Seleucid reckoning by the Macedonian calendar, a lunar year beginning in the
autumn of 312 B.C. But in Babylonia it was reckoned by Babylonian lunar years, from the spring of 311. Jewish practice may
have varied between spring and fall reckoning, if we may judge from I and 2 Maccabees. It is generally believed that 1
Maccabees, which gives numerous dates in this era, reckons from the spring, but there is difference of opinion as to whether this
spring year ran six months earlier or later or later than the corresponding Macedonian year. For this reason authorities often
differ by a year in dating Jewish and Seleucid events in this period. For convenience this chapter utilizes the dates of 1
Maccabees by reckoning year 1 as 312/11 B.C., without any dogmatic assumption of exactness in all cases.
Palestine Under Hellenistic Rule
Palestine Under the Ptolemies - Soon after the death of Alexander, Ptolemy made Syria and Palestine
tributary to Egypt. Antigonus subjugated these districts temporarily, and Palestine changed hands several
times before 301. In this time of change and uncertainty many Jews left Palestine to settle in the new city
of Alexandria, where the Jewish population eventually formed a large self-governing segment of that
cosmopolitan capital, and became Hellenized to the extent of needing the Hebrew Scriptures translated
into Greek.
After the Battle of Ipsus in 301, where Antigonus was slain, Syria fell to Seleucus; but Palestine, which
Ptolemy had occupied, was left to Egypt, though Seleucus never gave up his claim to it. Judea learned to
take advantage of the opportunity for intrigue with both sides. Under the Ptolemies the chief cities of
Phoenicia and Palestine were considerably Hellenized, and new cities were established, with Greek forms
of government. But Jerusalem remained the center of a Jewish state under the civil as well as the religious
leadership of the high priest, who was the representative of the people in dealing with the king. There was
also a council of elders derived, as some think, from the assembly of Nehemiah’s day. Thus the lives of
the people were still regulated by Jewish laws and customs, although there began a gradual process of
absorption of Hellenism from the use of the Greek language and the contacts with the officials and the
Greek settlers in the cities. This, however, developed slowly, and reached a climax under Antiochus IV.
From the beginning there was a constant war of intrigue and diplomacy, as well as intermittent fighting,
among the three houses of Seleucus, Ptolemy, and Antigonus. In this struggle Ptolemy II Philadelphus
relied on Palestine as a buffer state against Seleucus, hence his liberal gifts to the Jews.
Being literary-minded, Ptolemy II, with his counselors, began to collect books from other nations for his
great library in Alexandria. Men of letters were welcomed in the city. According to Josephus, the king, at
the request of the chief librarian, asked the high priest Eleazar to send Palestinian scholars to make a
Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus the translation was begun that is now called the
Septuagint. It is uncertain whether the version was made for an official presentation to the Alexandrian
library or whether it was produced privately for the Alexandrian Jews. Only the Pentateuch was translated
then, and other portions of the Old Testament canon were added later.
384
Josephus tells us that one of the Ptolemies made Joseph, a nephew of the high priest Onias I, tax collector
for the whole area of Palestine, Coele-Syria, and Phoenicia, and showered favors upon him. Palestine was
left largely to its own devices so long as the taxes were paid and the Egyptian authority recognized. Little
is known of the details of this period, but it is evident that the Jews fared better than later, when the
Seleucids took over the country. Yet there arose a party which was to give Palestine into the hands of the
Seleucid house, little realizing what the future held for them.
In 221, the year in which Ptolemy III was succeeded by Ptolemy IV Philopator, Antiochus III (the Great)
came into Palestine on his way against Egypt, but the venture was a failure. In 219 he took Seleucia on
the Mediterranean. In 218 he succeeded in placing garrisons in various places in Palestine. In 217 Egypt
met and defeated him in Raphia, south of Gaza. Tradition has it that Ptolemy IV visited Jerusalem,
outraged the Jews by going into the holy of holies, and was smitten with superstitious terror. Egypt held
Palestine for another decade or so. The invasions of Egyptian territory and the native uprisings within
Egypt give clear evidence of the inefficiency of Ptolemy IV’s administration. His death came just about
the time when Rome and Philip V of Macedonia were signing a treaty of peace, and when Antiochus, who
had been strengthening himself in Asia, was returning to Antioch.
In 203 Ptolemy IV was succeeded by his son Ptolemy V Epiphanies, who was only four years old. Egypt
sought the help of Rome, but Philip V of Macedonia and Antiochus made an alliance against Ptolemy,
and the Seleucid forces penetrated Palestine for the third time. In a decisive battle in 201/200 near Panium,
not far from Mt. Hermon, the Egyptian forces were defeated. The result was that Egypt permanently lost
Palestine to the Seleucid empire.
Palestine Under the Seleucid Empire - The Jews had changed masters, and it soon became clear that
they did not profit thereby. The comparatively lenient policy of the Ptolemies was replaced by a closer
supervision, a greater demand for taxes, interference in the appointment of the high priests, and later by
religious persecution.
Antiochus III, who had come to the throne at a time when the Seleucid empire was weak, succeeded in
extending its territory approximately to the original boundaries. Soon after he conquered Palestine he was
confronted with the opposition of Rome, which was alarmed by his growing power and his alliance with
Philip V of Macedonia. In 190 at Magnesia in Asia Minor, Antiochus was decisively defeated by Rome.
He lost Asia Minor permanently and paid a large indemnity. One consequence of this was increased taxes
extracted from Palestine. It is said that Antiochus’ successor, Seleucus IV Philopator, trying to raise
money to pay the Romans, attempted to confiscate the Temple treasure, but that his envoy, Heliodorus,
was frightened off by supernatural apparitions (2 Maccabees 3:6-39).
The successor of Seleucus IV was Antiochus IV Epiphanes, notorious as the persecutor of the Jews. His
efforts to conquer Egypt were blocked by Rome; his unsuccessful struggles with the Jews helped to
weaken his empire within. From his time on there was a gradual decline, and a century later his kingdom
was absorbed by the Roman Empire. Since Rome held an increasingly dominant position in the East in
the time of Antiochus III and IV, it is necessary to turn attention to this new Western power before
proceeding with the period of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
385
The Rise of Rome to Dominance
The Early Growth of Rome - Rome, originally composed of several independent tribes living on a
cluster of seven hills, became a city-state ruled by elective kings, with a senate or council of elders and an
assembly representing the people. By about 500 B.C. the king was replaced by two consuls elected
annually. During the 5th century the laws were codified. One important step in the rise of the common
people was the appointment of tribunes of the people, officers who enjoyed personal inviolability and
who had the power of veto over the magistrates in defense of the common people. During the time of
Alexander’s conquests to the east and the division of his empire among his successors, Rome was
occupied with internal political struggles and with territorial expansion in Italy.
Soon after the conquest of Italy was complete Rome became involved in a protracted struggle with
Carthage, a Phoenician colony on the North African coast that now loomed as Rome’s most dangerous
rival. Rome had formed alliances with districts all along the coast of Africa as far west as Spain and held
a good portion of Sicily, where the war with Carthage (known as the First Punic War) began. It took
Rome 23 years (264—241) to bring Carthage to her knees. The victor imposed a heavy indemnity and took
Sicily, which became the first Roman province.
Soon after the peace treaty Carthage aroused Rome’s jealousy and alarm by gaining a strong foothold in
Spain. This led to the Second Punic War (218-201), as a result of which Carthage gave up Spain and
most of her navy, paid heavy tribute, and promised not to make war without Rome’s permission.
Roman Intervention in Macedonia - By 200 B.C., with Carthage, her only genuine rival, no longer a
menace, Rome had become mistress of the western Mediterranean. The acquisition of foreign provinces
gave her the beginnings of a genuine empire. Rome did not at first seek new territories in the East. But
she was the strongest power in the Mediterranean; and in her efforts to protect herself, her trade, and her
allies, she was drawn into one local issue after another until eventually she became acknowledged
conqueror of the whole Mediterranean world.
In the step-by-step acquisition of the remains of Alexander’s empire, Rome’s first involvement was with
Macedonia during the Second Punic War. Philip V of Macedonia attempted to assist Carthage, but Rome
prevented this and formed alliances with certain Greek states and with Pergamum against Philip. This
First Macedonian War (215-205) was followed by the Second Macedonian War (200-196). Rome
defeated Macedonia at Cynoscephalae (197), and declared all Greece free. By breaking the power of
Macedonia, Rome had merely weakened the rival of the Seleucid kingdom, and henceforth had to reckon
with Antiochus III (the Great).
Rome and Antiochus the Great - While Rome and Philip were occupied in warfare, and Egypt was torn
by native uprisings, Antiochus the Great invaded Syria and Palestine. With the battle at Panium, 201/200,
Egypt had forever lost control of Palestine. It soon came completely under the rule of the house of
Seleucus, and the fortunes of the Jews took a turn for the worse.
As soon as Antiochus had made peace with Egypt he invaded Greece, but was defeated at Thermopylae
by the Romans and forced to flee back to Asia Minor. At Magnesia, near Smyrna, in 190, he was
decisively defeated by the Romans. By the subsequent peace treaty the Seleucid kingdom had to pay a
386
large indemnity, and to give up all its holdings west and north of the Taurus range. Rome did not keep
this conquered territory, but gave it to her allies, principally Pergamum and Rhodes.
Rome Ends the Macedonian Kingdom - Perseus, son of Philip V, was regarded as an enemy of Rome.
Envoys sent to Macedonia kept returning with growing concern. Finally the murder of the king of
Pergamum, while traveling in Greece, was made the occasion for a Third Macedonian War (171-168), in
which, at the Battle of Pydna (168), Rome completely crushed Macedonia. She did not annex the territory,
however, but divided it into four separate republics which she placed under her protection. Thus ended the
ruling house of the Antigonids. The kingdom of Macedonia, one of the three surviving kingdoms of
Alexander’s former domain, was no more.
Rome and Antiochus IV Epiphanes - After his defeat by Rome, Antiochus the Great sent his son
Antiochus (later called Epiphanes) there as a hostage. Eventually, however, Antiochus Epiphanes took the
throne (175) of the Seleucid empire. While Rome was busy with the Third Macedonian War (which
ended the Macedonian kingdom in 168), she had to meet another attempt of the Seleucid house to gain
control of the Near East. Antiochus Epiphanes marched against Egypt. He was about to take the country
when the envoy of the victorious Romans arrived with an ultimatum requiring Antiochus to leave Egypt,
then an ally under the protection of Rome. Antiochus, who well understood Roman military power,
withdrew.
Thus by 168 B.C. Rome had conquered one of the three surviving Hellenistic kingdoms, assumed
protection of the second, and repulsed the third by the mere word of an envoy, although she did not annex
any of their territory until some years later. The frustrated Antiochus returned from Egypt and turned his
attention to the Jews.
Antiochus Epiphanes and the Jews
While in Greece Antiochus Epiphanes had become acquainted with Hellenic culture and was enamored of
Greek sports, theatricals, and pageantry. When he came to power he was filled with dreams of uniting all
the peoples of his empire by the common bond of Hellenistic culture. He made the mistake of trying to
force what had until then been a natural and gradual development.
Gradual Hellenization of the Jews - It has been mentioned that the Jews who settled in Alexandria, soon
after it was founded, became Hellenized during the period of Ptolemaic rule over Palestine. There were
Jews in the principal cities of the empire, and even in Palestine many cities became centers of Greek
culture of a sort. Those who dealt closely with officials had to use the Greek language, and many among
the upper classes in Judea, including the leading priests, adopted Hellenistic dress and customs. The
younger minority felt that the old faith and morals were out of date, but the mass of the people were
inclined to distrust the new ways. In opposition there grew up a conservative party that stood for the strict
observance of Judaism according to the Torah. These conservatives came to be known as the Hasidim
(Chasidim or Assideans), or pious ones. The cleavage between these two parties of Jews, the Hasidim and
the Hellenists, became a major controversy after the Seleucids took over. Onias III, a high priest early in
the Seleucid period, was conspicuously pious, and a contender for traditional Judaism against the
Hellenizing trend.
387
Onias’ brother Jason, a Hellenizer, bribed Antiochus to make him high priest in Onias’ place, and then set
out to make Jerusalem a Greek city. But in a few years Antiochus sold the high priesthood to a higher
bidder, this time to Menelaus, who was not even of the priestly tribe, but a Benjamite, and therefore not in
favor with the people. Strife between the supporters of the different factions in Jerusalem gave Antiochus
an opportunity to intervene. Josephus tells how the Hellenizers went to Epiphanes informing him of their
wish to adopt the Hellenistic mode of living that he was fostering, and requesting permission to build a
gymnasium in Jerusalem. This was particularly offensive to the conservatives, because in the gymnasium
the athletes exercised in the nude, as did the Greeks. Soon the officials of the Temple were more
interested in the public games than in the ministrations of their holy office. Greek names became popular.
For example, Eliakim was changed to Alcimus, Joshua to Jason.
Hellenization Enforced by Antiochus - It was on his return from a campaign against Egypt that
Antiochus Epiphanes entered Jerusalem, where he was warmly welcomed by the liberals. According to 1
Maccabees this was in 170/69 B.C., but there is difference of opinion as to the dating of his Egyptian
campaigns, and even as to the method used in 1 Maccabees of reckoning the Seleucid Era. It was at some
time between 170 and 168 that Antiochus visited Jerusalem, and to show his appreciation of the
Hellenizing leaders there, he put to death many of the conservatives and a few who wished to return to
Egyptian sovereignty. He was even permitted to take many of the Temple treasures.
In 168, some think in order to save face after his humiliation by the Romans in Egypt, Epiphanes marched
into Palestine, and entering Jerusalem by treachery, plundered the Temple, stopped the morning and
evening sacrificial offering, erected an idolatrous altar before the Temple for the sacrifice of swine,
burned some of the buildings, and destroyed portions of the city wall. He built a fortress south of the
Temple area in the old City of David and placed a garrison there. He ordered the Jews to cease their
worship of Jehovah and offer worship instead to the Olympian Zeus and Dionysus, to cease circumcision,
to disregard the Sabbath, to use the pig as both an article of diet and a victim of sacrifice, and to destroy
the Torah. Josephus adds (Antiquities xii. 5. 5 [257—264]) that when the Samaritans saw the disgrace of
Jerusalem they went to Epiphanes, disavowing any relationship to the Jews and asking to be permitted to
call their sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius. This was granted, and they were
officially freed from any connection with the Jews. See on Daniel 11:14.
The Maccabees Revolt - Finding that the faithful chose death rather than resistance on the Sabbath day,
the troops of Antiochus martyred many. Not only the Hasidim, but the rank and file of the people stood
against this religious persecution. But very soon the opposition took a new form at the town of Modein,
18 miles (29 km.) north west of Jerusalem, about midway to Joppa. When Mattathias, a man of the
priestly lineage, was commanded as leader of his district to initiate the service ordered by the king, he
refused. He and his five sons slew another Jew who offered the idolatrous sacrifice, and the Syrian guard
as well. Then, leaving their town, they fled to the wilderness, where they were joined by hundreds of loyal
Jews who determined to be true to their faith. They used armed resistance on any day of the week. Thus a
war between the Jewish nationalists and the Seleucid house was begun that ended only when the Jews
achieved a measure of independence.
Judas Maccabaeus Restores the Temple Worship - On the death of Mattathias (167/66) the leadership
fell to his son Judas, who took the surname Maccabaeus. Thus this family of patriots, originally the house
of Hashmon (the Hasmonaeans), became known as the Maccabees. A Syrian army sent out to quell Judas
388
was defeated in two encounters, of which the second took place near Beth-horon. Antiochus Epiphanes,
called east because of a Parthian uprising, commissioned Lysias to act for him in his absence, and to
continue the war against Judas. In the first encounter at Emmaus (166/65), Judas Maccabaeus repulsed the
enemy. Then Lysias tried to come at Jerusalem from the south. Judas was victorious again at Beth-sur
(165), a few miles south west of Jerusalem. By the terms of peace arranged with Lysias, both Jewish
factions were permitted to live in Jerusalem; Menelaus remained as high priest; the Temple was to be
restored to the worship of God. All emblems of pagan worship were obliterated, and new burnt offering
altar was erected. On the 25th of Chisleu (165), Judas had the Temple rededicated, and that day has ever
since been memorialized by the feast known today as Hanukkah (feast of lights), referred to in the New
Testament as the Feast of the Dedication (John 10:22). See on Daniel 11:14.
Josephus says that the restoration of the Temple “took place on the same day on which, three years before,
their holy service had been transformed into an impure and profane form of worship. For the Temple,
after being made desolate by Antiochus, had remained so for three years” (Antiquities xii. 7. 6 [320]).
This he connects with “the prophecy of Daniel,” without identifying it. But Daniel’s prophecy fits a
Roman oppressor, not a Macedonian, and, further, it speaks of 2300 days (see Daniel 8:9-14). Those who
try to make the text say that 2300 “evenings and mornings” mean 1,150 literal days cannot make the
interval equal either exactly 3 '/> years or 3 years.
Therefore, for several reasons, Daniel cannot refer to the trouble wrought by Antiochus Epiphanes, but to
some other far-reaching event that seems to have eluded the search of many a student from the time of
Christ on. (For a study on this question see Daniel 8 and 9).
Antiochus Epiphanes found so much trouble in the east that he never returned to Antioch. Foiled in the
attempt to loot the treasures in a temple of Nanai in Elymais, he escaped—unlike his father. Later he fell
ill and died in Media (164/63). On his deathbed he appointed one of his associates, Philip by name, as
regent for his young son, Antiochus V Eupator. When Philip returned to Antioch to contend with Lysias
for the regency, he found that Lysias and the boy king had gone back to Palestine to quell factional
uprisings. This time Lysias was engaged in defeating the forces of Judas at Bethzacharia, but just as he
placed Jerusalem under siege he learned that Philip was already at Antioch claiming the regency. In the
face of this threat Lysias hastily arranged terms of peace with Judas, whereby Menelaus the high priest
was taken from office, brought to Antioch, and there put to death. Alcimus, who, though a descendant of
Aaron, was not of the high priestly line, was appointed high priest in Menelaus’ place, but he was
deposed by the people when it became known that he opposed Judas. The high priesthood thus suffered
from the union of political with religious authority in one person.
There ensued conflict between Lysias and Philip for control of the boy king, revolts in the eastern
provinces, and the arrival from Rome of Demetrius, son and rightful heir of Seleucus IV, who had 12
years before been cheated out of his throne by Antiochus IV. Warmly welcomed in Syria, Demetrius
instigated the assassination of the boy king Antiochus V, thus depriving Lysias of his power, and as a
result Demetrius I Soter gained the throne in 162/61.
Jews Seek Alliance With Rome - Judas Maccabaeus sought to strengthen the Hasmonaean cause by
securing the friendship of Rome. Probably in 161 he obtained a treaty intimating friendship without
assuring assistance in case of internal warfare. On the request of the Jewish Hellenizers, Demetrius sent a
force to garrison Jerusalem, and to confirm in the high priesthood Alcimus, leader of the Hellenistic party
389
who had appealed to him for help. But the Hasmonaean bands still roamed the country, and won a victory
over Nicanor at Adasa, near Beth-horon (162/61). Demetrius then sent a force large enough to crush the
revolt. At Elasa, some ten miles north of Jerusalem, in 161, Judas Maccabaeus was killed. His brothers,
with refugees from his army, fled to the desert. Both the Hasidim and the Hellenizers were tolerated under
the Seleucid control. Alcimus died the following year, and the office of high priest may have been vacant
for several years, probably because of factional strife.
Jonathan in Michmash - The Seleucid forces again returned in an attempt to destroy the Hasmonaean
guerrillas. They fortified various cities, but found it more expedient to make peace with the new
Maccabean leader, Jonathan, brother of Judas. Jonathan was given Michmash for the official residence of
the Hasmonaeans, where they could live independent of the Hellenistic forces in Jerusalem. Here he spent
some years strengthening his hold on the conservatives among his people, and eventually dominated all
Judea outside Jerusalem.
The Maccabean Struggle for Independence
Jonathan Gains Control of Judea - The reign of Demetrius I did not last long. In a few years the
upheavals in the Seleucid empire gave Jonathan an opportunity to strengthen the position of the
Hasmonaean house and of Judea. Alexander Balas, a weakling sponsored by Attalus of Pergamum as the
supposed son of Antiochus Epiphanes, was recognized by Rome and backed by Ptolemy VI Philometor of
Egypt as claimant to the Seleucid throne against Demetrius I. In 153/52 he was established in Ptolemais, a
port south of Tyre. Both rivals, seeking advantage through a buffer state in Palestine, offered inducements
to Jonathan. Demetrius returned Jonathan’s hostages, abandoned the garrisons in Judea, and finally
offered complete freedom to the Hasmonaeans. Not to be outdone, Alexander Balas, by making Jonathan
high priest in 153, won his support. Soon Alexander Balas with his allies defeated and killed Demetrius.
Jonathan, the new high priest, went to Ptolemais to the wedding of the new king to Ptolemy’s daughter,
Cleopatra Thea (grand-daughter of the first Cleopatra, but not one of the seven queens of Egypt who bore
that name). On this occasion Jonathan was made general and governor in Palestine. Thus the Maccabean,
or Hasmonaean, house came into control of the Jewish nation in 151/50.
Jonathan Gains Foothold in Samaria - When the youthful Demetrius Nicator, son of Demetrius I, the
real scion of the Seleucid house, entered northern Syria to depose Alexander Balas, Jonathan stood for
Balas against the governor of Coele-Syria, who espoused the cause of Demetrius. In this fighting
Jonathan took Joppa, Ashdod, and Ashkelon. But Ptolemy now repudiated Alexander Balas and gave
Cleopatra to Demetrius, whom he installed as Demetrius II in 146. In the ensuing war both Balas and
Ptolemy were killed. Demetrius II was unable to rule with a strong hand. In spite of complaints to the
king from the garrison in Jerusalem and from the liberal Jews, Jonathan appeased the young Demetrius
with costly gifts, and so was victorious. He was confirmed as high priest and was given control of several
important districts in Samaria.
In 145 B.C., Tryphon, a military leader from Apamea, marched against Antioch, forced Demetrius back
to the coastal cities, and enthroned the infant son of Balas and Cleopatra Thea as Antiochus VI. Jonathan,
thinking that this turn of affairs offered further opportunity for the advancement of a Jewish state, made
alliance with Antiochus VI through Tryphon. About this time he sent a new envoy to the Senate at Rome
390
in the hope of furthering the overtures made by Judas. Tryphon, making a pretense of friendliness,
treacherously seized Jonathan and slew him, probably in 143/42; but, needing more men, Tryphon did not
follow up this assassination. Returning to Antioch, he dethroned the child Antiochus VI and made himself
dictator, but Demetrius II still held the coastal provinces.
Simon—High Priest, General, Prince - Jonathan’s brother Simon at once took charge of the
Hasmonaeans at Jerusalem. In retaliation for the murder of his brother, Simon threw his support to
Demetrius II. In return the Jewish state was practically made free, all arrears in tribute being remitted and
future tribute abolished. The Seleucid garrison in Jerusalem was starved into submission, and the Jews
considered that the last hindrance to their independence had been removed, in 143/42. At the time of the
feasts of the sixth month in 141 the people in formal assembly conferred the high priesthood on the house
of Hashmon, and Simon received the title “High Priest and General and Ethnarch (Ruler of the People) of
God.” The Jewish state was now politically independent, and it began to expand further with the conquest
of Joppa and Gazara (Gezer).
Palestine in the Maccabean Period
391
In 141/40 Demetrius II went to fight the Parthians, and soon was taken prisoner. Realizing what a
valuable hostage he would make, the Parthians showed him every courtesy and gave him a daughter of
the Parthian king. In 139/38 his brother Antiochus Sidetes entered Syria, hoping to drive out Tryphon and
restore the kingdom to the house of Seleucus. Cleopatra Thea, learning of her husband’s marriage to a
Parthian princess, gave her hand and her assistance to his brother, Antiochus. Tryphon then murdered the
child Antiochus VI, but within a few weeks was taken and forced to kill himself. Thus Antiochus VII
Sidetes gained the throne. A strong king, he determined that Palestine should be brought under control.
His first attempt failed, however, and for three years Judea had some semblance of peace. Then in 135, at
a feast in Jerusalem, Simon met his death through the treachery of a son-in-law. Simon’s son, John
Hyrcanus, kept the assassin from assuming control and was installed in his father’s place as high priest.
From Priest State to Kingdom
Antiochus VII, Last Strong Seleucid King - Soon after John Hyrcanus took over, Antiochus VII,
invaded Palestine in force, overran the country, and laid siege to Jerusalem. After more than a year
Hyrcanus was forced to seek terms. Antiochus accepted tribute and hostages and imposed an indemnity,
yet did not further deprive the Jews of their freedom, possibly out of respect for Rome. A little later
Antiochus VII, the last strong Seleucid king, was killed (in 129) while campaigning against the Parthians
in an effort to re-establish Seleucid rule in the east. Babylonia was thenceforth lost to Parthia, and the
Seleucid empire never recovered its former strength.
During this campaign the Parthians freed Demetrius II and sent him back to Syria, hoping to stop the
Seleucid advance. Demetrius II, whose reign was interrupted for ten years by his brother’s rule while he
was a prisoner in Parthia, now resumed control, on Antiochus’ death (129). However, he was opposed by
his former wife Cleopatra and by an Egyptian-sponsored pretender. After several years of intermittent
civil war, Demetrius II was murdered, in 126/25. Later (115-113) Antiochus VIII (Grypus), Cleopatra
Thea’s son by Demetrius II, and Antiochus IX (Cyzicenus), her son by Antiochus VII, fought for
supremacy. From then on there was strife between the factions of various successive and rival kings, until
Rome took over in 64. This gave the Jewish state its opportunity for growth.
John Hyrcanus Incorporates Samaria and Idumaea - While Rome was standing by, watching the
houses of Seleucus and Ptolemy destroy themselves, John Hyrcanus again became an independent prince
and expanded his territory in Palestine. He destroyed the city of Samaria and the temple on Mt. Gerizim.
An Arab people from Transjordan called Nabataeans, who gained considerable power during the Seleucid
decline, had dispossessed the Edomites, many of whom settled in the Negeb, or southern Palestine. John
Hyrcanus next moved against these Edomites, now called Idumaeans, and forced them either to leave the
country or to be circumcised and become Jews (Josephus Antiquities xiii. 9. 1 [254—258]). Thus the
Hasmonaeans, at first champions of freedom against religious persecution, ended by forcing religion on
others. This effort to weld together the houses of Esau and Jacob, a plan that had failed in the past, was
destined to bring much suffering and sorrow in later years when the Idumaean Herods ruled over the Jews.
See The Hasmonaeans and the Herods.
John Hyrcanus found little opposition from without, but much within his own nation. For some time the
Hasidim—the strict party of the “pious’—had become alienated from the increasingly worldly
392
Hasmonaean priest-rulers. Hyrcanus belonged to the Pharisees, as the principal representatives of the
older Hasidim came to be called. But, according to tradition, the Pharisees offended him, with the result
that he became a member of the Sadducees (the successors of the older moderate Hellenists) and so
conducted himself as to win the antagonism of the populace.
The Hasmonaean Kingdom - On the death of John Hyrcanus (Hyrcanus J) in 105/04, his wife was to
succeed him as civil ruler and his son Aristobulus (1) as high priest, says Josephus. But Aristobulus
starved his mother to death, imprisoned three of his brethren, and took to himself the joint title of ruler
and high priest. His brother Antigonus assisted him in the government until he fell into disfavor and was
assassinated. In his one brief year of rule Aristobulus warred against the Ituraeans, a heathen people to the
north. Taking Galilee, he forced the inhabitants, like the Idumaeans, to be circumcised and become Jews.
At Aristobulus’ death (103) Alexandra (Salome), his widow, opened the door of the prison to his brother
Alexander Jannaeus. She gave him her hand in marriage, and made him ruler and high priest. Alexander,
if not Aristobulus before him, added the title of king. He slew his other captive brother and appeased the
Pharisees by giving them important offices in the government. He then planned on the seizure of outlying
districts to bring the kingdom of Israel back to about the area it had occupied in the days of David.
Alexander’s first move, against Ptolemais on the coast, west of Galilee, embroiled the Jews in a struggle
between Ptolemy VIII Lathyrus and his mother, Cleopatra III of Egypt. Alexander Jannaeus was defeated,
not only at Ptolemais, but at Gaza and other Judean towns. Nevertheless he remained master of occupied
territories.
Alexander Jannaeus was greatly detested by the Jews, both in Jerusalem and in the army. Once when he,
as high priest, went to the altar to offer sacrifice, the people pelted him with citrons. Enraged at this, he
had more than 6,000 slain. Later, a civil war broke out, in which the Jews for a time allied themselves
with a Seleucid prince against their own king, who persecuted the Pharisees with barbarity.
Despite his many defeats, Alexander Jannaeus acquired territory east of the Jordan and on the formerly
Philistine coast, thus extending the borders of the country to approximately where they had stood in the
height of the early Hebrew monarchy.
Decline of the Hasmonaean Power
Finally, in 76/75 Alexander Jannaeus died. His widow, Alexandra (Salome), possibly on his advice, sided
with the Pharisees and so established herself as reigning queen. The Pharisees had suffered so much under
the cruel rule of Jannaeus that they were willing to have a woman reign if only they could come back into
power. Keeping the civil authority in her own hands, Alexandra (see The Hasmonaeans and the Herods)
entrusted the high priesthood to her son Hyrcanus II. But her son Aristobulus II sided with the Sadducees.
Strife between the liberal Sadducees and the conservative Pharisees flared up again. Hyrcanus II
permitted a persecution of the Sadducees that drove them to other parts of Palestine and left them
determined to raise up a rebellion against him.
On Alexandra’s death in 67 the entire authority of the kingdom, both civil and religious, went to
Hyrnacus II, but the contest between Hyrnacus and his brother Aristobulus resulted in the intervention of
Rome and the end of Hasmonaean rule in 63 B.C. Before the closing chapter of Jewish independence is
393
concluded, it will be necessary to go back to pick up the thread of Roman history that leads to Pompey’s
conquest of the East.
Rome to the End of the Republic
In a previous section, the sketch of the development of Rome ended with the year 168 B.C. By that time
Rome had put an end to the first of the Hellenistic monarchies and had turned back the Seleucid king
Antiochus Epiphanes from the conquest of Egypt, but had annexed no territory. At first Rome used her
power in the East in attempts to preserve the peace. In her efforts to avoid unprofitable or unnecessary
wars, Rome repeatedly sent commissions to the East to investigate appeals, claims, and counterclaims,
and of course to win whatever advantage she could. She sought to build up the smaller states, like
Pergamum, which won leadership in Asia Minor through alliance with Rome; when the Seleucid empire
threatened to become too powerful she encouraged divisive elements, such as the Jews; she made allies of
Egypt against Syria, of the Greeks against Macedonia, and the like. But when Rome became alarmed, she
fought ruthlessly. Eventually a series of wars led to territorial expansion that overtaxed her republican
constitution and ended in despotism.
The Third Punic War (149-146 B.C.) - By 150 Rome was alarmed by the reviving prosperity of once-
prostrate Carthage. Although some Roman leaders had realized that Carthaginian competition was not a
threat, there was a party that constantly stirred up the fearful memories of Hannibal, and demanded the
complete obliteration of the rival city. Carthage, provoked by adjoining Numidia, an ally of Rome, broke
her promise not to wage war without Rome’s consent. Rome’s vengeance was the Third Punic War. After
a three-year siege Carthage was utterly destroyed in 146.
The Fourth Macedonian War (149-148) and Corinth - While besieging Carthage, Rome was met with
an uprising in Macedonia, and trouble with the Achaean League of cities in southern Greece. In 146, the
year of the destruction of Carthage, Rome annexed Macedonia as a province, broke up the Achaean
League, and completely destroyed Corinth, taking off to Italy her art treasures. The administration of
Greece was then assigned to the Roman governor of Macedonia.
Rome Acquires Pergamum - In 133 the last king of Pergamum bequeathed to Rome his territory, which
embraced a considerable portion of Asia Minor. From then on annexation continued until Rome took over
Syria, and finally Egypt, by 30 B.C. But parallel to this growth of empire was an internal revolution that
took place in Roman government and society in the century from 133 to 30 B.C.
Rome’s Century of Revolution - During the century witnessing the decline of the Ptolemaic and
Seleucid houses, Rome to only expanded territorially but also shifted from a republic to a one-man rule.
As Rome grew from a city-state 20 miles square to a nation and then an empire, the popular assembly of
citizens meeting at Rome to vote became virtually a local machine. The Senate, which had started as an
advisory body to the magistrates, gradually became supreme. But it was sadly unfitted to rule an empire.
Civic loyalty gave way to grasping for individual aggrandizement.
Contact with other nations had brought tremendous changes. Commerce with, and tribute from, foreign
lands had made Rome most wealthy and created new standards of living. Slaves, captured in the wars,
soon replaced native farm labor, and as a result unemployment grew. Association with the provincials,
394
particularly with Greece and the East, had introduced great changes in religion, politics, philosophy, art,
and literature. New social vices crept in, bringing increased crime, bribery, and intrigue. The same sort of
disintegration that had wrecked the house of Israel in the days of the divided kingdom contributed to the
decline and collapse of the Roman Republic and the rise of absolutism.
Attempts at Reform - Italy had been a land of small farms. When the farmers were called to long
extended wars their lands were absorbed into large estates devoted to grazing. Tiberius Gracchus, as
tribune in 133, attempted to have the state allot public lands to the unemployed. This met such violent
opposition on the part of the estate holders that it cost Tiberius his life. In 123 his brother, Gaius Gracchus,
became a tribune. He secured the sale of public grain to the poor at half price, and encouraged the
landless to settle in the provinces. But his reforms resulted in his death also. Both of the Gracchi tried to
have citizenship extended to all in Italy.
A few years later the assembly asserted its power by choosing Gaius Marius, a man of humble origin, as
commander against Numidia. Marius’ innovation of recruiting paid troops led to the later professional
army. He was successful in Numidia and later against two invading Germanic tribes, the Cimbri and
Teutones. Marius continued, as consul, to impress upon the army its real superiority over the Senate. Then
long-standing discontent occasioned by Rome’s reluctance to grant citizenship to all the allied peoples in
Italy brought on civil war (the Social War), which finally ended with the extension of citizenship to all
Italians.
Political Rule by Military Leaders - The sequel of the war with the Italian allies was a ruthless civil war
between a successful general, Sulla, champion of the aristocratic Senatorial party, and Marius, leader of
the people’s party. Sulla gained political victory and dictatorship through the power of the soldiery.
However, he retired after putting through his legislative program strengthening the power of the Senate.
After Sulla’s death in 78, one of his own officers, Pompey, distinguished himself both at home and
abroad. Elected consul with Crassus for the year 70, Pompey instituted some excellent reforms, but he
made clear that any final decision in matters of state lay, not with the Senate or the assembly—as was
theoretically the case—but with the leader of the military.
Rome Takes Syria and Palestine - In 67 the popular party made Pompey commander of the forces
Rome sent to the East to rid the sea of the Cilician pirates, a task he accomplished in three months. The
next year he was authorized to wage war with the recalcitrant kings of Pontus and Armenia. Victorious,
he pushed on to the Caspian and subjected Asia Minor to the will of Rome. In 64 Pompey campaigned in
Syria, ended the Seleucid monarchy, and turned southward into Palestine. He took Jerusalem and broke
the power of the Hasmonaeans. By 63 Syria and Judea were added to the Roman territory.
Caesar and the First Triumvirate - In 60 Pompey, together with Julius Caesar and Crassus, a financial
colossus of great influence, formed an unofficial alliance to dominate the Senate. This was known as the
First Triumvirate. Caesar, a nephew of Marius by marriage and a partisan of the popular party, had once
been deprived of his property by Sulla, and fled from Rome until Sulla’s death. In 60, after a year as
governor of farther Spain, he was elected consul for 59. The triumvirate worked together to control
legislation and to realize their separate ambitions in provincial commands—Caesar in Gaul, Pompey in
Spain, and Crassus in Syria and the East. Crassus was killed in his campaign against Parthia in 53.
Pompey was elected sole consul for the year 52.
395
In 49, when Caesar was required by the Senate to leave his legions and stand for consular election as a
private citizen, he refused, and crossed the Rubicon River into Italy proper with his troops. Pompey and
most of the Senate fled to Greece. At Pharsalus, in Thessaly, Pompey was defeated in 48. Caesar used the
constitutional machinery as a tool. For example, he was voted a dictator for life. In fact, the republic was
dead, and Caesar was the master of the Roman world. He made some useful reforms, including the
introduction of the 365 1/4 day calendar that we use, with only slight correction, today. But he was
suspected of wanting to make himself king and was therefore assassinated in 44 B.C.
Octavian the Heir of Caesar - At the death of Julius Caesar it was hoped that Mark Antony, then consul,
could reorganize the government along the old lines of democracy. But immediately Octavius, or
Octavian (later the Emperor Augustus), then an 18-year-old lad, the grandnephew of Caesar and adopted
heir, appeared in Rome to secure his heritage. After a year of wrangling with Antony, a new triumvirate
was formed (in 43) consisting of Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus. Following the defeat of Cassius and
Brutus, the leading conspirators, both of whom finally committed suicide, Octavian and Antony divided
the empire. Octavian took Italy and the West. Antony, taking Egypt, Syria, and the East, forgot his
administrative duties in his intoxication with Cleopatra VII, queen of Egypt, who was perhaps more
skilled in the arts of intrigue than her great-great aunt Cleopatra Thea of a century before. With Cleopatra,
who had charmed Caesar, Antony dreamed of a divine kingship. In 32 Octavian declared war on Antony,
and in 31 won a great naval victory off Actium, on the western coast of Greece. Antony and Cleopatra
fled to Egypt, leaving their land forces to capitulate. Thereupon Antony’s subordinates and the allied and
subject princes of the East submitted to Octavian, who went into winter quarters before going on to Egypt
in 30. Finally both Antony and Cleopatra ended their lives in suicide. Thus in 30 B.C. Egypt, the last of
the great Hellenistic monarchies into which Alexander’s domain was divided, became a Roman province.
Octavian Becomes the Emperor Augustus - Octavian, now undisputed master of the Roman world,
took care to avoid the title of king, so obnoxious to the Romans. Preserving the external form of
republican government, he ruled by holding the offices or the powers of various magistracies
simultaneously. The Senate also voted him the title of Augustus (“Majestic”), and he was known as the
princeps (“first” or “chief” citizen); his rule was regarded as a “principate” rather than a monarchy (on the
attitude of the eastern provinces). Indeed, his successors for a long time preserved this legal fiction of the
principate, although historians are right in saying that the republic was dead and that Augustus was the
first Roman emperor. He was a monarch in fact if not in name, and the title imperator (“commander” of
the armies), which was the source of his imperial power, came in later times to mean “emperor” in a
monarchical sense. Augustus was a wise and moderate ruler who brought peace and prosperity to his vast
empire. It was during a census decreed by him that the New Testament era was ushered in at Bethlehem.
The End of Hasmonaean Independence
The Origin of the Herods - The fall of the Jewish priest-kingdom to Rome has been mentioned, but not
described. The end of Hasmonaean rule was linked closely with the rise of the Herod family, of Idumaean
ancestry, that is, of the Edomites who were compelled by the Maccabean John Hyrcanus to accept the
Jewish faith (see The Hasmonaeans and the Herods).
396
This close connection of Edomite and Jew gave to an Edomite named Antipater (or Antipas) opportunity
to take a civil post in the Jewish kingdom, and he became governor of Idumaean for the Jews. His son,
also named Antipater, seems later to have held the same position. When civil war broke out between the
Maccabean brothers, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus I], the younger Antipater supported Hyrcanus and
brought with him the alliance of Aretas III, king of the Nabataeans, an Arabian people of Transjordan and
the old Edomite territory. Aretas attacked and defeated Aristobulus, who took refuge in the citadel in
Jerusalem.
The Coming of Pompey - It was at this point that the Romans entered the war. Pompey remained in the
East after overthrowing the kings of Pontus and Armenia in 66 B.C. In 65 the general whom Pompey sent
into Syria was waited upon by emissaries from both Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. Probably for the very
practical reason that Aristobulus was safely ensconced in Jerusalem, the Romans sided with him against
Hyrcanus. Proceeding south, the Roman army forced Aretas to raise his siege of Jerusalem and withdraw.
But the arrogant conduct of Aristobulus caused Pompey to distrust him and to make him a prisoner. The
Roman army took possession of the city with the treacherous aid of adherents of Hyrcanus, although
Aristobulus’ soldiers continued to hold the Temple hill for three months longer. The Romans succeeded
in breaking through the walls in the summer or autumn of 63 B.C. In the ensuing capture of the Temple
site some 12,000 Jews were slain. Pompey and his offices entered the holy of holies and gazed in
astonishment at a sacred shrine that had no visual representation of the God who was worshiped there (see
Josephus War i. 7. 6 [152]).
Pompey ended the Maccabean kingdom and took considerable territory away from Judea.
He permitted Hyrcanus to continue as high priest and to rule with the title of ethnarch (“ruler of the
people’’), probably under the supervision of the Roman governor of Syria. Antipater was made his prime
minister. Aristobulus and his sons were sent to Rome as prisoners. They escaped, however, and three
separate times rose up in revolt against the Romans. Each time they were disastrously defeated. In
exasperation, Gabinius, the Roman proconsul of Syria, divided Judea into five districts, each governed by
a council of elders. Under this arrangement Hyrcanus retained less and less administrative responsibility,
while Antipater took more and more authority, becoming virtually the ruler.
In 54 B.C. Crassus, the triumvir, the successor of Gabinius as proconsul of Syria, on the pretext of
requiring money for a Parthian campaign, plundered the Temple treasure, with the result that the Jews
revolted in 53. In 48, when Pompey was slain in Egypt, after his defeat by Julius Caesar at the Battle of
Pharsalus, Antipater changed sides and became a vigorous and efficient partisan of Julius Caesar. In
return, Caesar granted favors to the Jews. Hyrcanus was accorded full authority, in 47, with the titles of
ethnarch and high priest, which titles were made hereditary to the Jews. Nevertheless, Antipater was still
the man actually in power, and made this clear to the Jews, to the great disgust of the nobility. Antipater
appointed his son Phasael governor of Jerusalem and its environs, and a younger son, Herod, later Herod
the Great, governor of Galilee.
After Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44, Cassius, one of the conspirators against Caesar, secured the
Roman command in the East, and to him Antipater and Herod gave wholehearted support. In return,
Cassius made Herod governor of Coele-Syria. Shortly thereafter Antipater was poisoned in Jerusalem.
397
In 42 B.C., after the defeat of Brutus and Cassius, Antony assumed control of Roman interests in the East.
Having been previously a friend of Antipater, Antony refused the pleas of the pleas of the Jews to remove
the Herodian house and retained Herod and his brother as ethnarchs of Palestine. Hyrcanus was allowed
to remain, but only as a high priest. Herod strengthened his position with the Jews by betrothing himself
to Mariamne, a granddaughter of Hyrcanus II (see The Hasmonaeans and the Herods).
Herod as King - The next year the Parthians invaded Syria, and Antigonus, a son of Aristobulus, raised
the banner of revolt and gained the help of a force of Parthians. Phasael was made prisoner and eventually
killed himself, while Herod fled and finally reached Rome. There, Herod won the favor of Antony and
Octavian, who were at that time in alliance, and the Roman Senate, in 40 B.C., unanimously voted Herod
the kingship of Judea.
Although Herod had the help of Roman arms, it took him three years to gain possession of his throne. The
Jews who opposed him made their last stand in Jerusalem. It required almost three months to take the
upper city and the Temple site. The subsequent slaughter was frightful, for both the Romans and the Jews
of Herod’s party were enraged at the stubborn resistance offered them. Antigonus, the last Maccabean to
function as king, was scourged ignominiously, and, at Herod’s earnest plea, put to death. Herod was now
(37 B.C.) “master of a city in ruins and king of a nation that hated him.”
en
[simon | db TOE
(M) Aristobulus II
' Mattathias | Alexandra (Salome),Queen
6
Aristobulus |
The Hasmonaean Geneology
The Hasmonaeans 175 B.C. - 100 A.D.
and the Herods
398
Antipas _|
Herod Agrippa Il
a ion
The Herods Geneology
The Hasmonaeans 175 B.C. - 100 A.D.
and the Herods
The Reign of Herod the Great
From the point of view of politics and culture Herod was rightly called “great.” He succeeded in
maintaining a balance of allegiance in the shifting current of a difficult political stream; on the one hand
he strengthened his kingdom and protected its prosperity, while on the other he retained the friendship
and cooperation of Caesar Augustus. But along with his sounder qualities he was possessed of a growing
jealousy and suspiciousness of nature that caused him to murder his closest relatives and best friends.
Herod and the Sanhedrin - Almost immediately upon gaining the throne, Herod executed 45 nobles
who had led in the revolt of Antigonus. Many of these men were members of the Sanhedrin, and their loss
necessitated its reorganization. The new council thus organized was dominated by the Pharisees. However,
many of these Pharisees were opposed to Herod and had even refused to take an oath of allegiance to him;
consequently he did not allow them to exert a significant influence on politics. Accordingly, the
Sanhedrin became chiefly a place for theological discussion.
Herod and the Hasmonaeans - Herod insulted the remnant of the Hasmonaean (Maccabean) family by
appointing as obscure Babylonian (or Egyptian) Jew as high priest. Because Herod suspected the
399
Hasmonaeans of plotting against him, he eventually put to death old Hyrcanus II; his daughter Alexandra,
Herod’s mother-in-law; Hyrcanus’ grandson, Herod’s own brother-in-law, the well-favored Aristobulus
IH; and finally Mariamne, Aristobulus’ sister and Herod’s own wife. Except for his sons by Mariamne,
this marked the end of the Hasmonaean house, which for almost 150 years had been foremost in Jewish
affairs.
Hellenization - Like Alexander the Great, Herod’s patron, Augustus, was determined to unify the Roman
world through the diffusion of Greek culture. Herod was quick to follow his example, and attempted to do
for Palestine what Augustus was doing on a larger scale for the empire. A tide of heathenism swept over
Jerusalem. Greek races and games were the order of the day, the religion and trappings of paganism
flourished within sight of the Temple, and shrines to pagan gods were erected at various places
throughout the country. When in reaction some of the Pharisees plotted against Herod, he retaliated
vigorously and destroyed many of them.
Herod the Builder - At strategic places throughout his dominions Herod built fortresses to keep the
turbulent Jews in check; in fact, his own beautiful palace in Jerusalem was virtually a fortification. He
spent years and thousands of talents in building the city of Caesarea and in providing for it an artificial
but effective harbor. His building activities also took him outside Palestine. He presented market places,
gymnasiums, and temples to communities as far away as Greece, Rhodes, and Syria.
Herod’s greatest project was the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple of Zerubbabel,
beautiful though it had been, was now almost 500 years old and badly in need of repair. Herod determined
to satisfy his own artistic pride, and at the same time to win the friendship of the Jews, by giving them a
magnificent place of worship. Eighteen months were devoted to rebuilding the sanctuary proper, and eight
years were spent on the surrounding platforms, walls, courts, and porches. After the work had been
brought to this point, and the buildings were in full use, much still remained to be done; in fact, the details
of the Temple were not completed until after A.D. 62, only a few years before it was destroyed by the
Romans.
Herod’s Last Days - Aristobulus and Alexander, Herod’s sons by his Hasmonaean wife Mariamne, had
been educated at Rome, and were tall, handsome men, proud of their Hasmonaean blood. When they
returned to Jerusalem they became the objects of plots by Herod’s sister Salome (See NOTE) and his son
Antipater. As a result the suspicion of Herod was aroused against these two sons, and he finally brought
about their execution in 7 B.C. At the same time some three hundred Jews accused of sympathizing with
them were stoned to death. Antipater continued to scheme, until, only five days before his own death,
Herod ordered this son executed also.
NOTE: This Salome (no relation to the Hasmonaean Alexandra, mother of Hyrcanus II), was the grandmother of Herodias, and
thus the great-grandmother of the Salome whose dancing won her the head of John the Baptist from Herod Antipas, a son of
Herod the Great and the ruler of Galilee before whom Jesus was tried.
As Herod approached the end of his life he could pride himself on many substantial achievements. He
was leaving monuments of great artistic beauty; commerce and manufacturing in Palestine were in sound
condition. But Herod was not loved by his people; they hated him for his heavy taxation, his paganizing
activities, and his unbounded cruelties. When he fell ill and it was declared that he could not recover, wild
rejoicing broke out in Jerusalem, and a mob tore down the golden eagle—hated emblem of their Roman
400
overlords—that Herod had placed over the entrance to the Temple. When he did recover, however, Herod
wreaked his vengeance upon many of these disappointed celebrants.
Sensing that his last days were upon him, the old king ordered his sister Salome to imprison in the
hippodrome all the leaders of the Jews and to kill them as soon as he himself was dead, in order that the
nation might be in mourning when his time came. Although she did carry out the order of imprisonment,
Salome later released the men.
One of the last acts of Herod the Great was the malicious killing of the infants of Bethlehem in the vain
endeavor to destroy the Messiah, the newborn Jesus, of whom he had heard from the wise men of the East
(Matthew 2:1-18). Joseph and Mary escaped with the infant to Egypt, where they remained until Herod
died early in 4 B.C.
401
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
THE MESSIAH’S GENEALOGY
Priest Zacharias Turned Mute by God in 4152 A.M.
To safeguard the plan of salvation, God worked miraculously in the life of Zacharias, John the Baptist’s
father. One day when the old Levite priest Zacharias “executed the priest’s office” (Luke 1:8), burning
incense in the temple’s Holy Place, “there appeared an angel of the Lord on the right side of the altar of
incense” (Luke 1:10). The angel delivered a message that was intended for Zacharias and his wife only.
They should keep it to themselves; that is why the angel appeared to the priest inside the Holy Place,
while the rest of the worshippers waited outside (Luke 1:10). The crowd outside was unaware of what
was happening inside the temple; they even marvelled that Zacharias tarried inside for so long (Luke
1:21). But Zacharias received one of the mysteries of the Kingdom to protect God’s prophecy regarding
the coming of the Messiah. This message should be kept undisclosed until due time.
The people in the outer court were eager to know what happened inside and enquired of the priest, but he
could not speak. He just made signs that they could not comprehend except that they perceived that
Zacharias had seen a vision (Luke 1:22). The angel who brought the message had told the priest that he
was going to remain mute and not be able to speak until the day that these things shall be performed
(Luke 1:20); that is until the child John the Baptist should be born; and not in Jerusalem but in the country
hills of Judea (Luke 1:65).
It was imperative that the old priest become mute for nine months because he did not believe the words of
the angel (Luke 1:20). An unbeliever who receives the word of God is prone to question its truthfulness
and voice his incredulity. But more than that, if Zacharias had not believed wholeheartedly what the angel
had revealed to him, he could have tried to understand the message from the mouth of his colleagues.
Then the message that should remain concealed until the time of fulfillment would have been disclosed
even among the enemies of God. In that regard the old priest’s muteness served as a protective shield
against the craftiness of Satan, and a safety net for the coming of the Messiah.
John the Baptist: a Nazarite from Birth
God’s enemies, particularly Satan, should not discern beforehand who the Messiah was. Therefore, God
preordained the birth of John the Baptist who was born with the vow of a Nazarite. The angel’s message
to the Levite priest was straightforward: that Elisabeth his wife was going to conceive a son and call his
name John (Luke 1:13). Moreover, the angel stated that this child was going to make reforms in the lives
of many of the children of Israel, that by his ministry many would be converted from their sins to the
Lord their God (Luke 1:16). The angel also told Zacharias that their son would go before the Lord in the
spirit and power of Eliah (Luke 1:17). John should be a Nazarite from his mother’s womb. For that reason,
the angel had counseled him:
402
“For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall
be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb” Luke 1:15.
A Nazarite was a person who was separated for a holy mission-separated for the Lord (Numbers 6:2). A
Nazarite was commanded to abstain from wine, strong drink, vinegar, liquor of grapes, nor to eat moist or
dried grapes (Numbers 6:3); that is, no product from the grapevine (Numbers 6:4). Nazarites were also
commanded to let their hair grow and not to make any trims or cuts; that is, no razor should be used on
their heads (Numbers 6:5).
An example of a Nazarite is that of Samuel. The Word of God reveals that the last judge of Israel was
born with the vow of a Nazarite from his mother’s womb. Samuel was promised to God by his mother
Hannah that if God would grant her to conceive “a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the
days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head” (1 Sam. 1:11). Samuel was granted the high
honour to carry on with the holy office of a Nazarite, a priest and a prophet. We will see that John the
Baptist also fulfilled those three characteristics. But first let us consider the following Messianic prophecy
that, while speaking directly of Samuel, also represents the life of John the Baptist who proclaimed the
good news of the Messiah and of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Scripture reads:
“And I will raise me up a faithful priest that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my
mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever” (1 Sam. 2:35).
Samuel was a faithful priest who prepared the way for King Saul, who was God’s anointed. Notice that
the life of John the Baptist also fits the description of (1 Sam. 2:35). John also prepared the way of the
Lord, and walked before the Messiah, the anointed of the Lord.
The Savior’s Conception in 4152 A.M. (4 B.C.)
The time had come for the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding the birth of the Messiah. And Divine
providence directed the life of Mary to act very prudently in order to safeguard the life of her Savior.
While in the hill country of Judea John the Baptist was growing in the womb of Elizabeth, “in the sixth
month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth” (Luke 1:26). It was
in the sixth month of the year 4152 that Gabriel visited Nazareth and announced to Mary the conception
of the Messiah who was to be called “the Son of the Highest,” and to whom the Lord God was about to
give the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32). The virgin understood that this King Whom she was
about to conceive would sit on David’s throne. But the angel revealed more than that; this King was not
only the son of David but he shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35), therefore “of His kingdom there
shall be no end” (Luke 1:33). On the same visit, Gabriel revealed to Mary that her cousin Elisabeth was
also expecting a baby in her old age, and had already been pregnant for six months. (Luke 1:36).
When the virgin had agreed to God’s holy proposal the angel departed from her (Luke 1:38), and after
Mary had a conversation with her husband Joseph, she arose “‘and went into the hill country with haste,
into a city of Judah” (Luke 1:39). When she entered the house of her cousin Elisabeth and greeted her, the
baby in Elisabeth’s womb leaped, and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:41). The reason is
that Mary had already conceived Jesus Who was the Creator of the universe, Who incarnated in the
403
likeness of man to save us. Elisabeth saluted her cousin Mary with the honourary inquiry as to why it was
granted her the honour of this visit, she asked: “that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke
1:43). Mary also acknowledged that it was her Saviour and God who was in her womb: “My soul doth
magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour” (Luke 1:46, 47).
Three Months Away from Home
After Joseph and Mary had celebrated their wedding ceremony, they did not spend time together like in
an intimate honeymoon; instead the young virgin went on her way to the hills of Judaea, where she spent
her first three months of pregnancy at the house of her cousin Elisabeth (Luke 1:56). And it seems that
she returned to her own home after Elisabeth gave birth to John the Baptist (Luke 1:57).
Mary’s three months away from Joseph helped future generations of believers to understand that this holy
couple did not have marital intercourse to bring about the birth of our Saviour. The Scriptures reveal that
“before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 1:18). Although the plan
had to be carried out speedily, it should also be conducted correctly in order to fulfill all righteousness;
that is, it had to be done under the right circumstances of the virgin and her husband’s marriage. Thus the
Holy Child was conceived by the Holy Spirit right after the wedding of Joseph and Mary. Therefore, the
baby’s conception was legitimate because Mary was the legitimate espouse of Joseph (Matt. 1:18). By
accepting God’s plan, Mary demonstrated her loyalty to God as she preferred to honor God rather than
men. As soon as she had entered into a covenant with God, the newly-wedded virgin had to advise her
husband that she was carrying in her womb the Creator and Redeemer of the world. When Mary told
Joseph about her amazing experience they both kept the matter highly confidential. God’s mystery
remained undisclosed to the rest of humanity until the victory had been won by our Lord Jesus.
Birth of John the Baptist in 4152 A.M.
John the Baptist’s birth happened in the ninth month of the year 4152 (4 B.C.) exactly six months before
our Lord Jesus’ birth. It was in the month called Kislev which is the equivalent to November/December of
our calendar. The Lord Jesus was conceived in the sixth month (Luke 1:26) of 4152 when Elizabeth was
in the sixth month of her pregnancy (Luke 1:36). If the birth of a Biblical dignitary should be celebrated
on the 25th of December that would have to be the celebration of John the Baptist’s birth and not that of
our Savior Jesus. Actually, neither of their birthdays were recorded nor celebrated as such.
On the day of John’s birth, Zacharias prophesied, and although the wording of his speech sounded like it
referred to his newborn son John, it was an utterance in reference to the Messiah who was soon to be born.
The events around the Baptist’s birth, also helped to confound and thwart the cunning stratagem of Satan.
The miraculous way that Zacharias became mute helped protect the plan of salvation against Satan’s
diabolical plans. On the day of John’s circumcision something amazing happened. The child’s name was
revealed for the first time to the public. The close relatives who witnessed the child’s circumcision
decided that the baby should be called after his father; so they called him Zacharias (Luke 1:59). But
Elisabeth immediately silenced them with a loud and clear “Not so; but he shall be called John” (Luke
1:60). The mother did not reveal any God-given information as to why the name John was chosen, even
404
though the neighbors and relatives questioned her decision saying that nobody in their family had been
called by this name (Luke 1:61).
Seeing that the cousins and friends could not persuade Elisabeth to change her mind regarding the name
John, they proceeded to ask Zacharias (Luke 1:62). Zacharias who was still mute requested them by signs
to bring him a writing table where he simply wrote the following “His name is John” (Luke 1:63). And all
the people marveled.
But they had seen nothing yet! Immediately Zacharias’ mouth was opened as he spoke for the first time in
nine months and began praising God (Luke 1:64). News of this amazing event spread throughout the hill
country of Judaea (Luke 1:65). Moreover, the people wondered in their hearts saying: “what manner of
child shall this be?” (Luke 1:66).
Zacharias began to prophesy without revealing anything else but what the Holy Spirit put in his heart
(Luke 1:67): “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, And hath
raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David” (Luke 1: 68-69).
God who does not lie was presenting a message that was unfathomable for the fallen angels’ minds, so
that Satan could not decipher its meaning. What might have been through the mind of the fallen angels
when they heard Zacharias prophecy? Was it possible that this child John was the Messiah Who had come
to redeem God’s people? Moreover, John’s father continued prophesying, only this time his reference was
about John, “the prophet of the Highest,” as he addressed his newborn baby: “for thou shalt go before the
face of the Lord to prepare his ways” (Luke 1:76). Zechariah prophesied that John’s mission was “to give
knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins” (Luke 1:77). But Zechariah he did
not reveal that the Redeemer had been incarnated in human flesh in the womb of a virgin.
Dreams: One of God’s Means of Communication
Another way in which God protected His plan of redemption for this world and the ministry of our Lord
Jesus was through the many dreams by which he directed his children at the time of our Lord’s
incarnation. Joseph was told of Mary’s miraculous conception through a dream (Matt. 1:20), and he was
also warned in a dream to flee with his family to Egypt (Matt. 2:13). The wise men were warned in a
dream not to return to Herod (Matt. 2:12). Therefore, the communication through dreams was one of
God’s tactics in the spiritual war to safeguard the plan of salvation. Consequently, the person who
received a dream from God was able to know what was in God’s mind, while Satan and his followers
were unaware of God’s moves. Before we continue let us discover what the Word of God has to say about
Heaven’s communication through dreams.
When communicating His thoughts to human minds God sometimes appears in a dream to interconnect
His thoughts with the thoughts of men. That is how God has spoken to many people in the past, for
instance when He wanted to warn king Abimelech about Abraham’s wife God came to Abimelech in a
dream by night and said to him that he was a dead man for having taken the wife of another man (Genesis
20:3). Another example of God communicating His will through a dream is that of King Solomon’s
petition: “the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night: and God said, Ask what I shall give thee” (1
405
Kings 3:5). Notice that Solomon petitioned the Lord for wisdom, and their dialogue was done through a
dream while Solomon slept.
God alone has the power to know the thoughts in the minds of His created beings. No one else of God’s
creatures has that capacity. Kind David counseled his son Solomon to know God and walk with a perfect
heart “for the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts...” (1
Chronicles 28:9).
Because only God has the power to know what a particular being in the universe is thinking, dreams,
which are closely associated with the thoughts of the mind, cannot by any means be discovered by a third
person other than God.
Satan Could not Discern God’s Plans
Satan and his kingdom of wickedness can never foresee what is in the heart of the Lord. They are just
catchers of opportunities as they cannot understand nor actually anticipate God’s operations; they can
deploy their wicked forces against God’s people but will never be able to know what is in the thoughts of
God and His children. The prophet Micah, speaking about the nations that war against Sion, expressed
something that helps us understand this: “But they know not the thoughts of the LORD, neither
understand they his counsel for he shall gather them as the sheaves into the floor’ (Micah 4:12).
Therefore, God’s enemies cannot intercept the thoughts of the Lord. It is shocking to know Satan has used
methods of close examination and even torture so that through intimidation he can wring the truth out of
the children of God.
There are ways in which the wicked spirit world can know what is in the mind of people; that is, if people
allow Satan access to their minds by partaking in the wicked lifestyle of the kingdom of darkness. Or
even when good people harbor foreign thoughts that are not the product of their own thinking and by
impulse give voice to such thoughts. A vivid example is that of Peter, who, for a moment, tried to
dissuade the Lord Jesus from dying for us on the cross (Matt. 16:21). The Lord rebuked him harshly and
said to him “Get thee behind me Satan, thou art an offense unto me” (Matt. 16:23).
Joseph Urged to Remain Married to Mary in 4152 A.M.
Having made it clear how God protects His plan of salvation by communicating his secret trough dreams,
let us see what happened in the year 4152 when God made this world His dwelling place.
Joseph had recently married Mary, but when he learned about his wife’s pregnancy, he decided to divorce
her in a very private way (Matt. 1:19). It was then that the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream
(Matt. 1:20). The angel spoke directly to Joseph, but no one else was able to hear the conversation
because it was carried out from the angel’s mind directly to Joseph’s mind. The enemies of God were
unaware of the message that Joseph had received. To Joseph the angel expounded the prophecies
concerning the birth of this special baby in the virgin’s womb (Matt. 1:20). What is most amazing is that
Joseph was the first person to whom God revealed that the name of the Lord will be Jesus. Joseph receive
the honour of naming the child (Matt. 1:21). Remember that no one else should know the name of the
406
Lord until the day of the baby’s circumcision. That is why it was necessary that the message be given
through a dream, because in that way not even Satan could discover the details of the birth and the name
of our Saviour. The new adopted name of the Lord was a top secret because the prophecies forenamed
Him as Emmanuel, but here Joseph was told that he shall call Him Jesus. The angel of the Lord quoted
Isaiah 7:14 to Joseph: “they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us”
(Matt. 1:23).
Birth of Jesus the Messiah in the Year 4153 A.M. (3 B.C.)
The Lord Jesus was born six months after his cousin John, his birth took place in the third month of the
year 4153 (3 B.C.). The third month is called Sivan in the Jewish calendar and it is the equivalent to
May/June in our calendar. When Mary “brought forth her firstborn son” (Luke 2:7), the Scriptures say
that “there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over the flock by night”
(Luke 2:8). This data also confirms that the birth of our Savior took place at a time when it was fair
weather, appropriate for them to care for the sheep in the fields at night.
Those humble shepherds were eager to see the fulfillment of the Messiah’s prophecy as written in
Daniel’s book, and were expecting that at any moment the good news should be received. And God, Who
honours those who honour Him, visited them, and with great joy the lowly shepherds received God’s
message:
“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11).
Notice that the good tidings are about the birth of a newborn baby who is the Savior Whose title also is
THE LORD. With that address God the Father glorifies and exalts God the Son. The Father also
addressed the Son with the divine and majestic proclamation: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever...”
(Psalms 45:6). The apostle Paul confirms the fact that the divine declaration in Psalms was a praise from
the Father to the Son, where, indeed, God is exalting God. Therefore, the epistle harmonizes: “But unto
the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy
kingdom” (Hebrews 1:8).
The Word of God reveals that our Lord Jesus is the true God; hence, worthy to be worshipped. Therefore
we must praise and exalt Him saying: “To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty,
dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen” (Jude 1:25). That newborn baby, Who was and is the
Lord, is He of whom His apostles wrote:
“And we know that the Son of God is come and hath given us an understanding that we may know him
that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal
life” (1 John 5:20).
Wise Men’s Guidance Through a Dream
The wise men who traveled from off the eastern borders of Israel had received God’s top secret. They had
begun to taste the abundant grace of God as revealed in “the mystery, which from the beginning of the
407
world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 3:9). Because of their
faithfulness and diligence in searching the prophecies regarding the birth of the Saviour they had been
highly blessed with God’s revelation of His mysteries.
But the wise men made a grievous mistake, they visited the dragon’s den by inquiring of King Herod
regarding the whereabouts of the newborn King. Such inquiry only provoked Herod to be instantly
concerned (Matt. 2:3). With this visit the opportunist dragon, also called the old serpent, devil and Satan
(Revelation 12:9), thought that the life of our Saviour was in his hands, for he had been waiting the birth
of that Child and planning to destroy Him as soon as He was born (Revelation 12:4). Satan had some
knowledge of the prophecies and used that knowledge to plot the assassination of the Child through the
civil authority of the Roman official Herod. However, he wanted to ensure that the recently-born John
was not the promised Messiah. Therefore, he prompted Herod to investigate from the chief priests about
the Messiah’s prophesied place of birth, which they asserted to be Bethlehem of Judea (Matt. 2:5). Herod
had no clue about what was going on in the great cosmic conflict and Satan did not have all the particulars
about the Saviour’s family background nor the specific home where our Lord should be born. He could
only find out through a leaking of information from these wise men. Therefore, he tried as subtly as he
could to make inquiries from them about the specific details of God’s revelation and regarding the time
when they had begun to see God’s signs.
Scripture reveals that Herod took aside the wise men in private and inquired of them diligently as to when
the star appeared (Matt. 2:7). This was a very delicate inquiry, and Satan fetched all the particulars
possible, but he was infuriated and desperate for a thorough identification of the Child. When their
interview was over, Herod sent them away to Bethlehem, and because he had showed them kindness, he
requested of them to return his favor by asking them to return to him with a report after they “search
diligently for the young child” (Matt. 2:8). He was not interested in a mediocre report; he wanted a full
investigation so that he could plot an assassin’s visit which he cunningly labeled as “worship”.
From Jerusalem the wise men traveled further south to a small city called Bethlehem of Judea. God had to
act promptly; Satan had plotted the destruction of our Saviour. Once again, because Satan cannot read the
minds nor can he search a person’s dream, God warned the wise men in a dream that they should not
return to Herod, so they traveled via another road back to their own country (Matt. 2:12). Satan’s scheme
was frustrated, as the devil could not destroy the Lord Jesus’ life through Satan’s right arm the Roman
Empire. But the wise men had made a big mistake; because of the leakage of information that Satan had
fetched from them, dozens of infants would be massacred.
A Dream to Flee into Egypt
Remember that Joseph and Mary had come from a long distance from their home in Galilee in the North
of Israel to Bethlehem because the Roman Empire had given strict orders to conduct a census for all the
people of Israel. So the couple had to travel to their homeland where they had their ancestral lineage and
there they took the census in Judea, the region of the tribe of Judah, for them both belonged to Judah.
It is amazing how God kept the secret about the family background of the Lord Jesus. Satan could never
figure out that a humble family traveling south from Nazareth was going to be temporarily lodging in
Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy. To get to Bethlehem they had to pass beyond Jerusalem because
408
Bethlehem was located further south in the territory of Judah. Joseph and Mary were just lodging there to
register their names in the national census.
Satan could not attack the young family because he did not know the family from whom the Messiah was
to be born. He did not know the secrets given to God’s people by dreams. Therefore, right after the wise
men had departed and when the young family of the Lord had gone to sleep, an angel of the Lord
appeared to Joseph in a dream (Matt. 2:13) with the following urgent message:
“Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee
word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him” Matt. 2:13.
Notice once again that God spoke to Joseph in a dream so that Satan could not find out about their moves.
Bear in mind that Satan could have tried to destroy Mary, had he known that she was the virgin carrying
the Lord of Heaven. Joseph was awaken in the middle of the night and it was through another dream with
the urgent message to take the young child and his mother and flee that very night because Satan was
intending to destroy the life of the young Child. I can imagine that Joseph gently awoke Mary his wife
and told her that they had to leave that very hour. Mary knew that the Child’s life was in danger and they
could not venture into speaking verbally what they had received in a dream. They fled walking steadily
and quietly throughout the night and went south to Egypt where they should wait for further instructions
from the Lord (Matt. 2:14). They remained in Egypt until the death of Herod (Matt. 2:15).
It seems that Satan himself was kept at a distance from the place where the Lord Jesus was born. Satan
was expecting the return of the wise men to Jerusalem, and when they did not show up bringing news to
Herod, his schemes failed. Herod was exceedingly furious and began plotting a massacre that extended
from Bethlehem down the regional cities of the coasts (Matt. 2:16). He sent to kill “all the children from
two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men” (Matt.
2:16). Here is where the mistake of the wise men comes to light, they had leaked precious information
that they had received God’s guidance for the past two years; that is why Satan through Herod sent and
killed all the children from birth up to two years of age (review Matt. 2:7).
Ramat Rahel is a town situated south of Jerusalem, just before the locality of Bethlehem. Ramat is the
historical place of which Jeremiah had prophesied concerning the sad day of the slaughtering of little
children, of which it is said “In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great
mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not” (Matt.
2:17-18). The writing of Jeremiah renders the name of the town as Ramah and the mourning mother
whose children were slaughtered as Rahel, from there the new name of the modern city “Ramat Rahel”
(Jeremiah 31:15).
This massive infanticide carried out by Satan’s right arm, the Roman Empire, and in particular through
King Herod, Rome’s puppet ruler in Palestine, shows that Satan was furiously blinded. He ordered his
Roman soldiers to carry out the slaughter of the children in a vast radius in the southern region of Israel,
expecting that by this systematic killing they could kill the Child Jesus Whom they thought could not be
too far away. But, God in His wisdom had previously commanded Joseph to flee with his family out of
Israel into the territory of Egypt.
409
The Lord Jesus’ Genealogy
Divine providence also protected the plan of salvation in the life of our Savior Jesus by means of the two
lineages in Jesus’ genealogy. Let us see how God protected the plan of salvation in the genealogy of our
Lord Jesus.
See ee eee
1 Abraham 15 | Solomon 29 | Salathiel
2 | Isaac 16 | Rehoboam 30 | Zorobabel
3 | Jacob 17 | Abia 31 | Abiud
4 | Judah 18 | Asa 32 | Eliakim
5 | Phares 19 | Josaphat 33 | Azor
6 | Esrom 20 | Joram 34 | Sadoc
7 Aram 21 | Ozias 35. | Achim
8 | Aminadab 22 | Joatham 36 | Eliud
9 | Nahshon 23 | Achaz 37 | Eleazar
10 | Salmon 24 | Ezekias 38 | Matthan
11 | Boaz 25 | Manasses 39 | Jacob
12 | Obed 26 | Amon 40 | Joseph
13 | Jesse 27 | Josias 41 | Jesus
14 | David 28 | Jechonias
The greatest of all the mysteries of God is found in the genealogy of our Lord Jesus. Jesus Christ the
Creator (John 1:1-3), Who from everlasting to everlasting is God (Psalms 90:2), He “was made flesh”
(John 1:14). And, we find His lineage from the scepter of David. Of the Lord Jesus it is said in the Psalms:
“Thy throne O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter” (Psalms 45:6;
Hebrews 1:8). Of Him Jacob promised “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from
between his feet...” (Genesis 49:10). Referring to Him, Nathan the prophet told King David “... thy
throne shall be established forever” (2 Sam. 7:16). Consequently, the prophecies were fulfilled on that
glorious day when our Lord Jesus entered Jerusalem and the multitudes acclaimed Him with the shouts:
“Hosanna to the son of David; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest”
410
(Matt. 21:9). To Him belongs the Kingdom of Heaven, which he said “is at hand” (Matt. 10:7). Of this
Kingdom, the Lord Jesus said: “My kingdom is not of this world...” (John 18:36).
1. Adam 11.Shem | 21. 31. Boaz | 41. Joseph | 51. Cosam | 61. Semei 71. Melchi
Abraham
2. Seth 12. 22. Isaac 32. Obed | 42. Juda 52. Addi 62. 72. Levi
Arphaxad Mattathias
3. Enos 13. 23. Jacob 33. Jesse | 43. 53. 63. Math 73. Matthat
Cainan Simeon Melchi
4. Cainan 14. Sala 24. Juda 34. David | 44. Levi 54. Neri 64. Nagge | 74. Heli
5. 15. Heber | 25. Phares | 35. 45. 55: 65. Esli 75.Joseph
Mahalaleel Nathan Matthat Salathiel
6. Jared 16. Phalec | 26. Esrom | 36. 46. Jorim | 56. 66. Naum 76. Jesus
Mattatha Zorobabel
7. Enoch 17. Ragau | 27. Aram _ | 37. 47. 57. Rhesa_ | 67. Amos
Menan Eliezer
8. 18. 28. 38. Melea | 48. Jose 58. Joanna | 68.
Methuselah | Saruch Aminadab Mattathias
9. Lamech 19. 29. 39, 49. Er 59. Juda 69. Joseph
Nachor Nahshon Eliakim
10. Noah 20. Thara | 30. 40. Jonan | 50. 60. Joseph | 70. Janna
Salmon Elmodam
The ancestry of the King of kings dates back to the generation of Adam (Luke 3: 23-38). But is it possible
that the Lord has a human genealogy if He is the Creator of all humanity? Of Him it is written: “Without
father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like
unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually” (Hebrews 7:3); “...and who shall declare his generation?
For he was cut off out of the land of the living...” (Isaiah 53:8).
411
Jesus’ Genealogy: DNA Helix Pattern
Matthat
Levi Esli Naum
Simeon Jorim Nagge Amos
Juda Eliezer Math Matiathias
Joseph Jose Mattathias Joseph
Jonan Er Semei Janna
Elieakim Elmodam Joseph Melehi
Melea Cosam Jada Levi
Menan Addi Joanna VMatthat
Mattatha Melchi = Uhivese Heli
Nathan Neri . t ;
Abraham -> David Salathie - Zorebabel Joseph Jesus
Solomon Jechonias / ;
Roboam Josias Abiad Jacob
Abia Amon Eliakim Matthan
Asa Vianasses Azor Eleazar
Josaphat Ezvekias
Joram ichaz Sadoc
Ovzias Joatham
Achim
Jesus’ lineage was framed lineally from Adam, reaching onto Abraham and it follows a lineal genealogy
until King David. But notice that this lineage is parted in two separate genealogies on two occasions: after
David, and after Zorobabel. Consequently, in the eyes of the reader, both Luke and Matt. have two
apparently discrepant lineages. Matt. wrote that Jesus descended from King David through the kingship of
Solomon, (Bathsheba and David’s son) (2 Sam. 12:24). Whereas Luke wrote that Jesus descended
through the lineage of Nathan. This Nathan was also David’s son, the second child of Bathsheba,
(1Chronicles 3:5). Now, which one is the correct genealogy?
In answering that question, notice that Jesus’ lineage was inherited from David through both Solomon
and Nathan and down the centuries both genealogies linked together again with a common descendant, as
both lineages have Salathiel. This Salathiel fathered Zorobabel, the offspring of the two combined
lineages. But from Zorobabel the genealogies parted in different ways, as Zorobabel is said to have
begotten Abiud in the Gospel of Matt (Matt. 1:13), whereas in the Gospel of Luke, Zorobabel fathered
Rhesa (Luke 3:27). So here we have a repetition of God’s mystery; Zorobabel fathered two sons: Abiud
and Rhesa, just like David fathered Solomon and Nathan. And in both instances the two pairs of sons had
their lineal genealogy split to part separate ways. Zorobabel’s two sons Abiud and Rhesa, once again split
their recently combined lineage. Therefore, David’s lineage was carried in two parallel helices until those
two royal lineages combined once again with the life of the Lord Jesus.
It is not surprising to hear that David had two sons, and that of course David’s lineage was parted running
parallel like two DNA helices combining at different intervals. What is intriguing is the fact that Salathiel
had two fathers: Neri and Jechonias. Also Joseph, the husband of Mary, appears with two fathers: Jacob
and Heli. Now the question is: Is it possible that two of those four men are the fathers in law of Salathiel
and Joseph respectively?
Either Heli was the biological father of Joseph or Jacob was his father in law - or vice versa. But one of
the two was the biological father of Mary. In the book of Matt. we find that the genealogy of Jesus from
Abraham to Jesus is subdivided in three genealogies of fourteen generations each. Thus it reads: “So all
412
the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away
into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen
generations” (Matt. 1:17). But then, of course, if you count the last fourteen generations from the captivity
in Babylon there appear only thirteen names of men, the second last name for those generations is the
name of Mary of whom the Lord was born.
Joseph was from the tribe of Judah and from the very lineage of David through Nathan (Luke 3:23, 31,
32), and even though his lineage had parted ways, it had also intertwined like a DNA molecule about a
common axis, Zorobabel. Therefore, Joseph’s blood remained in the gene pool of David’s royal blood.
Yet, Mary’s lineage came directly from David’s royal blood through the lineage of King Solomon.
Consequently, Mary was favored by God because she belonged to David's family but also because she
was a righteous woman (Luke 1:30). Moreover, the angel told her: “And behold, thou shalt conceive in
thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus” (Luke 1:31). He is the Son of the promise,
of the Scepter of David (2 Sam. 7:16). Of Him the angel told Mary: “He shall be great, and shall be called
the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:33)
Moreover, the angel proclaimed: “... of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:34). That is because
His kingdom has been from eternity. The Lord’s Kingdom did not begin here on earth; for the Kingdom
of Heaven came down to earth. That is why “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before
Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). He was sent as One who has lived for eternity. Jesus is before Abraham,
and His Lordship and Kingship are way before David’s earthly kingship. The Scriptures reveal this in
Jesus’ address to the Pharisees:
“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose
son is he? They say unto him, the son of David. He saith unto them, how then doth David in spirit call
him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy
footstool? If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word,
neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions” (Matt. 22: 41-46).
When Elisabeth addresses Mary with the words: “And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord
should come to me?” (Luke 1:43), the focus of attention is not Mary but the everlasting Lord who was
incarnate in Mary’s womb. That is also why Elisabeth calls Him, who was still in the womb, “my Lord”.
The Inheritance of the Son of God
The title “The Son of God” belongs to the Lord Jesus only. Of Him, the angel said: “... Therefore also that
holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Because He is the Son
of God, the Lord Jesus allowed people to worship Him. One occasion when He walked on the water,
Peter, by Jesus’ power had been allowed to do the same. When Peter’s faith failed because of the
boisterous wind (Matt. 14:30) the Lord rescued him and the wind ceased (Matt. 14:32). “Then they that
were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, of a truth thou art the Son of God” (Matt. 14:33).
One day the Lord Jesus healed a man who had been blind from birth (John 9:1). When the Lord found
him later, He asked him: “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” (John 9:35). After hearing from the
Lord Jesus Himself that He is the Son of God, as Jesus told the man: “Thou hast both seen him, and it is
413
he that talketh with thee” (John 9: 37), the former blind man said: “Lord, I believe. And he worshipped
him” (John 9:38).
Bearing on Himself the Kingly title: “The Son of God”, the Lord Jesus also received the servant title “The
Son of Man”, because He “made himself of no reputation... and was made in the likeness of men”
(Philippians 2:7). That is why He said about Himself: “For the Son of Man is come to save that which
was lost” (Matt. 18:11). Only God has the prerogative of forgiving sins, but when the Lord cleanses
people of their sins He presents Himself under His servant title: “But that ye may know that the Son of
Man hath power on earth to forgive sins...” Three Gospels record this event (Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke
5:24), each is speaking of the Lord’s seventh day. Thrice it is written that the Lord uses His servant title in
connection with His Lordship as a reminder that He is the Creator. Thus we have Jesus’ acknowledgment
of His Divinity: “For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day” (Matt. 12:8; See also Mark 2:28
and Luke 6:5 and Genesis 2:2).
Regarding the theme of Jesus’ genealogy, let us consider that Mary was a means that God used for the
inheritance of God to be incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ. Mary’s lineage descended from Kings
David and Solomon (Matt. 1:1-16), therefore, the Lord Jesus rightfully received His title “the Son of
Man”. The Lord was born of a virgin according to Isaiah’s prophecy (Isaiah 7:14, Matt. 1:23). But Joseph
played a vital role in safeguarding the promised inheritance. The inheritance of the Messiah remained in
the tribe of Judah and more importantly in the family of David. Therefore, when Joseph decided to remain
married to Mary, he legally raised up the name of the Heir upon His inheritance. The Heir is the Lord
Jesus Who is rightfully the Son of God and the Son of Man.
To explain the mystery of Jesus’ genealogy and the role of Mary and Joseph in relation to God’s promised
inheritance, let us firstly consider the law that God gave to Moses in regards to the inheritance of
Zelophehad’s daughters (Numbers 36:3). Because Zelophehad had only daughters, the men were
concerned about the tribe’s inheritance, so they argued: “if they be married to any of the sons of the other
tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and
shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received...” (Numbers 36:3). Therefore,
God commanded regarding women heirs: “...Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family
of the tribe of their father shall they marry” (Numbers 36:6).
Second, let us consider the command that God gave Israel in order for them “to perform the duty of a
husband’s brother” in the case of a brother’s death leaving his wife a widow without children. As a way
of maintaining the perpetuity of his brother’s name, he had to marry his sister in law (Deuteronomy 25:5).
Notice what the Lord said: “And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name
of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel” (Deuteronomy 25:6). Keep in mind
that it is the first born who inherits his dead uncle’s name.
And third, let us consider the law of inheritance and marriage by the next of kin. We have the story of
Ruth the Moabitess who married Mahlon, Naomi’s son, of the tribe of Judah from Bethlehem. After ten
years of marriage Ruth’s husband died (Ruth 1:1-7). Ruth, who had no children, became a widow at a
young age, and she decided followed her mother in law Naomi as they traveled to claim their inheritance
in Bethlehem (Ruth 1:22). As the Bethlehemite Boaz entered into a marital agreement with Ruth, they had
to settle a matter of inheritance. By law the next of kin was to raise the name of the dead upon the first
born son (Deuteronomy 25:6). Boaz perpetuated the name of the dead, that is, Mahlon’s name, by
414
marrying his widow Ruth (Ruth 4:5-6). Therefore Boaz said: “Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of
Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the
name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren...” (Ruth 4:10).
Putting this in perspective, Boaz, who belongs in the lineage of Jesus, was the great-grandfather of King
David. By marrying Ruth, Boaz also perpetuated the name of the dead Mahlon so that Mahlon’s
inheritance should remain in Judah’s tribe, but more importantly that Mahlon’s name should be
perpetuated among their own family. This union produced the birth of their firstborn son Obed who was
the grandfather of King David.
When it comes to the birth of the Lord Jesus we find that the story of Boaz is an object lesson, a portrayal
of the mystery of the Lord Jesus’ birth and genealogy.
When Joseph who belonged to the tribe of Judah and who was of the family of David, married Mary, also
from David’s blood royal, he fulfilled all righteousness in that he perpetuated the name of King David by
legitimately accepting Mary as his wife of whom was born the One who assumed the scepter of David,
the Lord Jesus, Mary’s firstborn son (Matt. 1:25). Joseph did not sire the Lord Jesus. He was conceived in
Mary’s womb by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is one of two reasons why He is called the only
begotten Son of God (John 3:16). Yet, Joseph, on behalf of God, perpetuated David’s name upon Jesus’
inheritance. Of Whom it is also written: “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by
inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they” (Hebrews 1:4).
Think for a moment about Zelophehad’s daughters; they were the recipients of their father’s inheritance,
which should remain within their tribe, and in particular in their families. Therefore they only married
husbands of their own family (Numbers 36:6). This story is also a portrayal of what should happen in the
life of Mary who was favored of God to bear in her womb the Heir of God’s inheritance, His everlasting
throne. Therefore, Mary should marry a husband of her own family lineage in order to fulfill the prophecy
that Christ the King should come from the seed of David of the tribe of Judah. But Jesus’ name is more
glorious than David’s royal lineage, as the Scripture says:
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at
the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and thing under the
earth” (Philippians 2:9-10).
415
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
JOHN THE BAPTIST’S MISSION
“But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the
world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not
have crucified the Lord of glory.” 1 Corinthians 2: 7-8.
Two Cousin Priests
Our Saviour’s life and plan of salvation was not only safeguarded by the way God communicated his
secret through dreams and the genealogy of Jesus, but also by the upbringing of one of the greatest
prophets the world has ever seen, John the Baptist. Was John the Baptist born to the priesthood? Yes he
was; his father was a Levite priest who had been officiating in the Holy Place of the temple when he
received the angel’s announcement that he was to become the father of one of the greatest men. But of
John the Baptist nothing had been written concerning his priesthood in the house of the Lord, yet he was
to be anointed priest at the age of thirty years because he was the son of a priest. John was filled with the
Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb and willingly ministered as a priest calling the people to
repentance.
How appropriate it was that to safeguard the plan of redemption, John the Baptist was born and grew up
in the south of Israel, in the hill country of Judea. Bear in mind that Bethlehem the prophetic town where
the Messiah should be born was situated in the province of Judea. Now, to protect the life of the Saviour
and the plan of salvation, God in His providence had directed Joseph, before he met Mary, to move from
the land of his inheritance, from Judah’s tribal land, to Galilee in the north of Israel where he met Mary
who also belonged to the tribe of Judah. So they had settled down in the town of Nazareth in Galilee,
where the Lord Jesus’ conception took place. But the Messiah was born in Bethlehem in Judea and
remained there for just a couple of days before Joseph fled with his family to Egypt. They eventually
returned to Galilee where they settled down in Nazareth.
It was impossible for Satan to figure out who of the two holy men was the Messiah. One was growing up
in the right place in Judea and the other one was growing up in the wrong place, the place of which
Nathanael said “can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? (John 1:46) One was to become a priest
following his Levite lineage, the other one was a humble carpenter living in the wrong place, but of
Whom it was written that He was a “priest of the most high God (Hebrews 7:1), he is a Priest for ever
after the order of Melchisedec (Hebrews 5:6).
As a priest John the Baptist prepared the way of the Lord Jesus. John served the purpose of safeguarding
the ministry of Jesus. He grew up in the south, he had the vow of a nazarite from birth, and he was a
righteous man who lived in the desert. But in the north was growing up Emmanuel, the Lord Jesus who is
called Christ (Matt. 1:16). He was a man of humble beginnings, a most righteous Man Who earned His
living working in His home carpentry shop but more importantly the only One Who never sinned
(Hebrews 4:15).
416
Jesus’ Priestly Ministry Begins in 4183 A.M. at Age 30
John the Baptist, was a Nazarite, a priest and a prophet, one who matched many of the characteristics of
the Messiah. He began his public ministry at age 30 around the time when the Lord Jesus also began His
public ministry in 4183. The Word of God gives ample evidence that John the Baptist began his ministry
at the age of thirty years; just like the rest of his brethren the Levite priests.
Luke the evangelist gives an insight about the fact that John the Baptist was called to the ministry when
he was thirty years of age; just like our Lord Jesus. The Gospel links the exact year of Jesus’ beginning of
his public ministry with the year when John the Baptist received God’s call to prepare the way for the
Lord. First, he wrote that it was in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was Governor of
Judaea (Luke 3:1). Then he stated that Annas and Caiaphas were High Priests when “the word of God
came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness” (Luke 3:2). Once again Luke makes reference to
the prophecy of Isaiah; which was fulfilled in that very year. He wrote:
“As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying,The voice of one crying in the
wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight” (Luke 3:4).
Matthew states that “in those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea” (Matt.
3:1); here the evangelist is making reference to the time when the Lord Jesus also began his public
ministry as Messiah and Priest. After writing that John had just begun his ministry, Matt. presents the fact
that the Lord also began his ministry on the day of His baptism (Matt. 3:13). Of Him it is written that He
was anointed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38). Notice that the Lord comes from the north, from Galilee
Galilee where nobody would imagine that the King from David’s lineage would descend. Remember that
the tribe of David was in the south in Judah, where David established his kingdom.
John the Baptist played a vital role as prophet and priest because through him not only was the secret hid
from the enemies of God, but he was also instrumental in the anointing of the Messiah by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, “In those days” the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled in the life and ministry of John the Baptist,
as Matt. says: “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias” (Matt.3:3). The evangelist quotes
all the words of the prophecy:
“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the
desert a highway for our God” (Isaiah 40:3).
Bear in mind that God purposely omitted the name of John the Baptist from Isaiah’s prophecy. He would
rather prophesy of him as the voice of one crying in the wilderness. God could have given the name of
such a mighty man of valor, but He intended his name to be undisclosed. Isaiah prophesied of King Cyrus
and called him by his full name even when that king had not yet been formed in his mother’s womb.
Likewise, God could have revealed a complete family background about the Baptist, but instead He chose
to prefigure him as an anonymous preacher. Revealing his name God would have taken away one of
many safety nets arranged to maintain in low profile the early life of our Saviour.
John the Baptist had preached in a very short period of time to most of the country of Israel. He traversed
through the Jordan River valley as he preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Luke
3:3). He had declared to all Israel that his baptism was with water; but that one mightier than him was
coming Who shall baptize them with the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16). And one day, when John had finished
417
baptizing, Jesus was also baptized (Luke 3:21) and the heavens were opened and the Holy Spirit
descended upon Jesus while a mighty voice came from heaven saying: “Thou art my beloved Son; in thee
I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22). All these things happened in the days when John received the
commission to preach and baptize for the remission of sins, when “Jesus himself began to be about thirty
years of age” (Luke 3:23). The phrase above has just mentioned that the Lord began His ministry when he
was about thirty years of age. Therefore, in the year 4183 two 30 year old priests met each other in the
Jordan River, one after the order of Melchisedec, the Lord Jesus, and the other after the order of Levi,
John the Baptist.
Behold the Lamb of God
The secret about the Lord Jesus was so well kept that not even John the Baptist knew Him. Even though
John’s mother Elisabeth and the Lord’s mother Mary were cousins, they had not seen each other ever
since the visit of Mary thirty years earlier. So they were not acquainted with each other except that the
Holy Spirit had instructed John about the Lord. The Baptist says “I knew him not” (John 1:31). Then the
Baptist reveals a very important information about the Lord, he declared that the reason why he was sent
to baptize was for the purpose that the Lord Jesus “should be made manifest to Israel” (John 1:31).
Therefore here for the first time the God of Heaven was going to reveal Jesus, the lowly carpenter coming
from Galilee as the Son of God, and therefore the Lord was going to be made manifest as Christ the
Messiah.
A few days before meeting the Lord Jesus, John had told his followers that one is coming and is “mightier
than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear” (Matt. 3:11). And on the day when the Lord was baptized,
John guided by the Holy Spirit, called his followers’ attention to the Majesty of Heaven and proclaimed:
“Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). With such grand
acknowledgement John realized that his own salvation depended on the life of Jesus. But John did not
address the Lord by his name because he did not know him (John 1:33). However, John was also
commanded to make Him manifest in the eyes of the Israelites; therefore, he was given a sign for
identifying the Lord (John 1: 26). Thus the Holy Spirit had beforehand informed him that: “Upon whom
thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy
Ghost” (John 1:33).
Nobody else but John saw the Spirit descending from heaven and resting on the Lord Jesus (John 1:32). It
was an identifying sign intended only for John to see. Later the Baptist remarked “and I saw, and bare
record that this is the Son of God” (John 1:33).
How amazingly the plan of salvation had been kept secret from the enemies of God! How important it
was that John and the Lord remain unacquainted during those thirty years; because in that way Satan
could not possibly identify the Messiah before due time. Bear in mind that sometimes circumstances
compel people to speak. For instance: the incident when Peter was rebuked by the Lord with the phrase:
“get thee behind me Satan” Jesus felt compelled to say this because the devil had put those words in
Peter’s mouth. Similarly, Satan might have been questioning John the Baptist through his human
instrumentalities as to whether he was the Christ. Therefore, the Baptist revealed an important piece of
418
information when he said: “Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am
sent before him” (John 3:28).
John the Baptist was not in the habit of calling the Lord by His name, but by his mission title. Thus, the
day after Jesus’ baptism, while John was standing with two of his disciples and looking at Jesus passing
by, the Baptist said: “Behold the Lamb of God!” (John 1:36). When John’s two disciples heard him speak
of the Lord, they decided to follow Jesus (John 1:37). Andrew was one of them who left John to become
one of Jesus’ disciples (John 1:37).
On the day that the Lord was baptized, not only the people of Israel were eyewitnesses to the glorious
manifestation of God’s mystery, but the whole universe witnessed God’s proclamation of Jesus the
Saviour of the world, the Son of God. “The heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God
descending like a dove, and lighting upon him” (Matt. 3:16). There, the Lord Jesus was manifested in the
hearing of all present as the Christ. Remember that there was an audible voice, a voice that was heard
from heaven which said: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). There and
then for the first time Satan realized that the Lord, the Majesty of Heaven was also the humble Galilean
man whose physical appearance was nothing extraordinary. Of Him the prophet Isaiah had written: “he
hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him”
(Isaiah 53:2). Had the enemy known that the lowly Nazarene carpenter boy growing up in the grace of
God was the Saviour of the world, he would have focused all his rage on Him and the Lord Jesus would
have been a fugitive all His life.
All Eyes Focused on our Lord Jesus
The devil could not believe it when the Lord Jesus was the focus of attention at the Jordan river and God
said: “This is My beloved Son”. Satan realized just then that all his perspicacious observations of the
events taking place were of no avail to him, because he had been kept in the dark regarding God’s plan of
salvation. Satan had been defeated by God’s wisdom all those years. But the devil wanted to verify it
himself whether Jesus was indeed the Saviour of the world, the Son of God. Therefore, on the occasion
when the Lord was led by the Spirit into the desert, after He fasted and prayed forty days and forty nights
(Matt. 4:1-2), Satan assailed Jesus with the same question and asked twice: “If thou be the Son of God”.
With that question the devil wanted to achieve many things: he wanted to make sure whether Jesus was
indeed the Son of God. Satan also tempted the Lord to prove his Divinity by commanding the stones to
become bread. But the Lord’s answer was: “It is written; Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every
word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4).
Satan was astonished that Jesus gave all credit to the Word of God, consequently the tempter immediately
changed his strategy and began quoting Scripture, but not without first trying to irritate the Lord by a
repetition of the same question “If thou be the Son of God”. If Satan could cause the Lord to be irritated,
he could also incite Him to demonstrate self pride, either by showing off His faith or His power.
Therefore, very subtly the devil said: “cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge
concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a
stone” (Matt. 4: 6). Once again the Lord calmly replied “It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord
thy God” (Matt. 4: 7). With such an impressive reply, the Scriptures reveal that the Lord Jesus had
419
already perceived Satan behind all these temptations. But Satan had not understood that Jesus had
recognized him from the very beginning, from the moment when Satan opened his mouth. Therefore in
His second reply, Jesus made it clear that He was not acceding to the devil’s temptations. Nonetheless,
Satan was more determined to try to get the Lord angered by offering Him, Who is the Creator and Owner
of everything, all the kingdoms of the world, which Satan claimed as his possession. Satan insulted the
Lord by saying: “All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me” (Matt. 4:9).
To Satan’s daring proposal the Lord Jesus replied: “Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4:10). Only God can be worshiped, not
an angel (Revelation 19:10), not a man, notice what happened in the book of Acts “as Peter was coming
in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying,
Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Act 10:26).
Only to God belongs the prerogative to be worshipped: “Exalt ye the LORD our God, and worship at his
footstool; for he is holy” (Psalms 99:5). The Almighty God has for eternity been worshipped by His
creatures, and He commands all the heavenly beings to reverence and worship God the Son. Therefore,
“when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him”
(Hebrews 1:6).
Satan had disguised himself as a heavenly angel. However, our Lord Jesus did not focus his attention on
the messenger’s physical appearance. On the contrary, He paid close attention to the message. The Lord
Jesus tested the spirit’s message by the written Word of God, and the same counsel is given to God’s
church: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we
have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).
Thus, the Creator of all animate and inanimate things in the universe, was confronted by one of His
creatures, a renegade and malevolent fallen cherub who approached the Lord with the murderous intent to
cause Jesus’ downfall. It was none other than the archenemy of God, Satan himself, who used to be called
Lucifer “son of the morning” (Isaiah 14:12), who tempted our Lord Jesus.
When Satan approached the Lord Jesus, he did not appear as the mighty covering cherub that he once was,
but as a common angel. Satan took the form of an unknown angel that Jesus could not recognize as one of
those He had created. Remember that the entire angelical hosts were created by Jesus:
“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether
they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him”
(Colossians 1:16).
Our Lord Jesus, who had created all the angelical hosts and had given them their personal names, could
certainly have recognized any of his loyal angels coming to visit him when he had been in prayer all those
days. Nonetheless, He was confronted by a disguised stranger who dared to open his mouth to tempt the
Lord. The Lord who opens our understanding that “the Word of God is not bound” (2 Timothy 2:9),
Himself was not going to be bound to Satan’s whim. Our Saviour knew that there must be compatibility
between the Word of God and God’s messengers: they must speak in accordance with Scripture; that is,
“to the law and to the testimony” (Isaiah 8:20), for Scripture counsels us to test the spirits whether they
are from God (1 John 4:1). God counsels His children to follow Jesus’ example; that is, to “Submit
420
yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” (James 4:7). He was our
example in submission to God and resistance against Satan, for the devil fled from him.
Satan presented himself in disguise, in the form of an angel and not in the form of a powerful cherub as he
once was. “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 11:14).
Satan retains the capacity to transform himself into the external and physical appearance that he may
choose. He may opt to approach humanity even in the similitude of the universal Christ that humanity has
come to accept as “the authentic” portrayal of our Lord Jesus.
Satan could not try to deceive the Lord Jesus by approaching Him in the form of one person of the
Godhead, because as the Holy Scriptures reveal of our Lord Jesus: “And we know that the Son of God is
come... Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life” (1 John 5:20). Our Lord Jesus is the true God!
And the Word of God reveals: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him” (John1:18). Because the Lord Jesus is God and He alone has
seen the Father, then the tempter would not dare tempt Jesus by impersonating the Godhead. Satan can
only deceive humanity by impersonating divine beings because no human being has ever seen God the
Father. He can only deceive those who pay little or no attention to the written Word of God and His
commandments. People should know that there is not a single authorization in the Word of God for the
apostolic church to have a portrait of our Lord Jesus. Satan knows that he can only deceive those who
expect the coming of the Jesus he has painted in the minds of people.
Time and again it is clear that foreign forces are at work trying to distort and rewrite the Holy Scriptures
in the minds of people who ignorantly prevaricate as they fall into the trap of make-believe they are doing
Jesus a favor. They want to give our Lord Jesus a decent portrayal of people’s own conception of what He
should look like. And the worst thing is that in trying to help Jesus they downgrade Him from His
glorious and magnificent figure to a level of a mere human being. No wonder God strongly warned His
people not to make any similitude of God so that they should not corrupt themselves:
“Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the
LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a
graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female” (Deuteronomy 4:15-16).
The Baptist: “I must Decrease that He may Increase”
As the Lord became very popular because of His earnest desire to save His people from their sins, John
the Baptist commented to his disciples: “This is he of whom I said, after me cometh a man which is
preferred before me: for he was before me” (John 1:30). By this statement, the Baptist was conferring all
honour to our Creator. John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim, for he was not yet been put in prison
(John 3:22-23). One day, John’s disciples’ asked him: “Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to
whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizes, and all men come to him” (John 3:26). To that
comment the Baptist replied: “A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. Ye
yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He must
increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:27, 28, 30). John the Baptist had solemnly proclaimed:
“And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God” (John 1:34).
421
Execution of John the Baptist in 4183 A.M.
Not willing to accept defeat, Satan poured all his rage upon John the Baptist. While the Lord was in the
desert fasting for forty days and forty nights, John the Baptist was preaching and baptizing in the Jordan
River. But when our Saviour returned victorious He also began preaching and baptizing. The Scriptures
reveal that when the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples
than John, he departed to Galilee (John 4:1-3). When the Lord departed from Judea to Galilee, He heard
that John had been put in prison (Matt. 4:12). John’s imprisonment happened in the year 4183, just a little
time after Jesus returned from praying in the desert.
Satan was opposed to John the Baptist, not only because he came preaching repentance of sins, but
because through his life the Lord Jesus’ plan of salvation had been protected. Herodias had for a long
time wanted to kill the Baptist because he had reproved her sin of committing adultery with her brother in
law Herod (John 6:18, 19). Therefore, Satan was looking for the opportunity to destroy John but did not
do so until “a convenient day was come” (John 6:21). Satan sought the opportunity to kill John after he
learned that through the Baptist, God’s plan of redemption had been kept secret. It was not politically
right for him to carry out his murderous plan beforehand. But the day came when in 4183 Satan’s
murderous scheme was carried out as Herodias and her daughter asked for John the Baptist’s head in a
charger for a birthday present (John 6:25).
Jesus Preaches of Judgment Day in 4187 A.M.: “As the Days of Noah”
In the year 4187 when the Lord Jesus had visited Jerusalem before His death on the cross, He preached
about God’s final judgment. In His preaching he brought to memory the events that took place in the year
1656 when God destroyed the earth with a worldwide flood. The Lord Jesus warned that “as the days of
Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (Matt. 24:37). In His prophetic words the Lord
revealed to His disciples that the condition of the world will be morally degraded but also that the people
of the world will be living upon earth as if everything is okay, showing an attitude of carelessness for the
Kingdom of Heaven and living unaware that judgment had been going on for a long time, just like the
days of Noah who had been warning his contemporaries for a period of 120 years before the flood.
Therefore, the Lord Jesus continued:
“For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in
marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them
all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (Matt. 24:38-39).
Jesus Preaches About the End of the World
There are those who deny the events that took place in sacred history as recorded in the first chapters of
Genesis But the Lord Jesus when He preached while sitting down on the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem
brought to His disciples’ attention the events that will take place prior to His second coming.
422
The Lord Jesus made reference to the strange dawning of that day when in the year 2045 Jehovah
destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone and fire from the Lord (Genesis 19:24). The Lord said:
“Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted,
they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and
destroyed them all” (Luke 17:28-29).
The Messiah: A Blessing for All Nations
Counting from the beginning, 4187 years had elapsed in the chronology of this world since the day when
the Lord had pledged His life as a propitiation for the fallen human race (Revelation 13:8). The Messiah
had finally come and was “despised and rejected of men” (Isaiah 53:3), He was smitten of God (Isaiah
53:4), “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5), “and the
Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6), he was “brought as a lamb to the slaughter yet
he opened not his mouth” (Isaiah 57:7).
The long expected Messiah was none other than the Creator of this world Who had offered Himself as a
sacrifice on the day that Adam and Eve brought upon themselves the curse of death by transgressing
God’s holy Law. All the patriarchs from Adam to Abraham, as well as the Jews, had been sacrificing
unspotted and unblemished lambs for a period of 4187 years. These sacrifices represented the Messiah
Who had finally offered Himself and laid down His life for us in 4187 as He hung on the cross. And
Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled that prophesied about the Messiah who was crucified and martyred in
Jerusalem:
“T have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people...” (Isaiah 65:2).
Yet He offered Himself for the remission of our sins: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his
own blood he entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews
9:12). On the cross the Lord Jesus redeemed the entire human race. He exclaimed “Father, into thy hands
I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46), as He died; and the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled that the
old serpent who poisoned Adam and Eve should bruise the Messiah’s heel. But our Creator triumphed
over sin and Satan, and as the Lord resurrected, the second part of the Genesis’ prophecy was gloriously
fulfilled, so that by the Messiah’s victory that old serpent’s head was symbolically utterly crushed as the
devil was judged (John 12:31); and soon the sentence will be executed about him: “and never shalt thou
be any more” (Ezekiel 28:19).
God’s Children of the Promise
Since the days of Adam God’s people on earth had been waiting for the fulfillment of the promise-the
Savior of the world. Such a promise was not new to Abraham; to him God said: “for in Isaac shall thy
seed be called” (Genesis 21:12). So there is no point in other religions disputing the promise, because the
Savior did not come from the seed of Ishmael, or any other, but from Abraham through his son Isaac.
Remember that Ishmael was cast out from Abraham by the directions of God (Genesis 21:9-13).
423
Salvation comes from Yahweh God Almighty and it is offered to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and to all
the races of the world. Yet, the Savior would come from God’s chosen children of Abraham; that is,
“.,.Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise” (Hebrews 11:9). So the Savior comes from
the people of Israel as it is written: “But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed
of Abraham my friend” (Isaiah 41:8).
If Abraham built an altar with one of his children it had to be with Isaac, and it was on Mount Moriah, the
place where God tried Abraham’s faith to see if he would offer his son Isaac in a burnt offering (Genesis
22:2). It was on that site that “...Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount
Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David his father...” (2 Chronicles 3:1). There is no other city of
the thousands in the whole earth that God calls holy apart from “Jerusalem the holy city” (Nehemiah
11:1). It is of Jerusalem that the prophet said: “...the outcasts in the land of Egypt, shall worship the
LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem” (Isaiah 27:13). If ever Ishmael, an outcast in Egypt, wished to
worship God in a holy city, that would have to be in Jerusalem, of which the prophet wrote: “O Zion; put
on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city” (Isaiah 52:1).
Explaining how the promise was received, the apostle wrote: “Neither, because they are the seed of
Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Romans 9:7). The truth is that the
Seed was not coming from the loins of Ishmael whose children are also descendants of Abraham. “That is,
they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise
are counted for the seed” (Rom 9:8). “For this is the word of promise, at this time will I come, and Sarah
shall have a son” (Romans 9:9).
Whether you are a Jew, or a Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist or a Christian; if you accept God’s offer of
salvation through His Son Jesus, then God’s promise is yours: “Thou whom I have taken from the ends of
the earth... Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away” (Isaiah 41:9). Therefore, you
are also invited to belong to the children of the promise. You and I are called to belong to the true God
and Savior Jesus, as it is written: “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise (Galatians
4:28). That is the reason why God said to Abraham: “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed...” (Genesis 22:18, Acts 3:25), because God’s blessing is the salvation for this world. Therefore,
it is also written: “Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you in turning
away every one of you from his iniquities (Acts 3:26). And speaking of David, God says: “Of this man's
seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus” (Acts 13:23).
424
CHAPTER NINETEEN
FULFILMENT OF DANIEL’S PROPHECY
“But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the
law” Galatians 4:4.
2300 Years Until Judgment
The Word of God’s most glorious prophecy is that concerning God’s everlasting plan of salvation in the
life of our Lord Jesus. The climax of this prophecy is detailed by chronological and prophetic wisdom in
the book of Daniel. The Prophet Daniel presents in detail how to count the years in order to reach the
chronological year for the anointing of Jesus the Messiah, also the year of the Lord’s sacrifice, and the
period of time determined for the Jewish nation when the Gospel went to the Gentiles.
End of 70 Years Jerusalem Desolation Landmark for 2300 Year Prophecy
We have seen in chapter seven that Cyrus’ decree was the landmark for counting and understanding the
longest time prophecy of Daniel 8:14. The Chronicles of the kings of Israel assert the fact that the Persian
King Cyrus is the one who decreed to restore and to build Jerusalem and the temple. This decree also
fulfilled Jeremiah’s prophecy when he prophesied of Jerusalem: “this whole land shall be a desolation,
and an astonishment...” (Jeremiah 25:11), until “...when seventy years are accomplished...” (Jeremiah
25:12). It was of Cyrus that Isaiah had prophesied centuries before his birth: “I have raised him up in
righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives”
(Isaiah 45:13). And when the time had come, the prophecy was fulfilled when Cyrus decreed the
liberation of the exile Hebrew nation. Cyrus’ edict also assured the Jews’ liberty to restore Jerusalem and
the temple. So the Chronicles link together in one decree the two events: the liberation of the Jewish
exiles and the laying of the temple’s corner stone. That decree is therefore the starting point to count the
number of years for the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy of the Messiah, and also for the counting of the
2300 year prophecy until the beginning of Judgment in Heaven.
Cyrus’ decree (See 2 Chronicles 36:22-23) reiterates the fact that the prophecy concerned was not just the
seventy years for the desolation of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity, but more importantly the
foundation stone for the temple (see Isaiah 44:28). This decree is what Daniel referred to as “the going
forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem” (Daniel 9:25). The wording of the decree is
rewritten in the writings of Ezra 1:1-2, so that this historical landmark should not be forgotten by future
generations of believers.
425
The 2300 Years Prophecy Reaches Year 6000 A.M.
Cyrus performed all the pleasure of the Lord (Isaiah 44:28). He passed the decree to rebuild the temple of
the Lord in Jerusalem exactly in the year 3700. This was the same year in which Daniel the prophet
prayed earnestly to God for the prophecy of Jeremiah to be fulfilled that there should be only seventy
years for the desolation of Jerusalem. Daniel also prayed that Jeremiah’s prophecy should be fulfilled as
the Lord had revealed because in that very chronological year 3700 God alerted himl to the fact that there
is another time prophecy pertaining to God’s everlasting plan of salvation. This prophecy perplexed
Daniel because of the span of time that it encompassed, which would elongate the chronology of this
world’s history by 2300 years (Daniel 8:14), thus, reaching, the year 6000.
3700 + 2300 = 6000
But Daniel was worried about the fulfillment of God’s word and requested God’s clemency as he pleaded
on behalf of Israel that their sins be forgiven. Daniel knew that Israel’s apathy towards God’s prophecies
would bring about a postponement of God’s promise for Israel’s liberation from Babylonian exile.
Although Daniel was waiting for the liberation of the people of Israel from Babylon, his hope of all hopes
was nothing less than the coming of the Messiah. So when God revealed to Daniel that there would be
483 years into the future until the Messiah (Daniel 9:24), he was disheartened because of the promise’s
prolongation. But more than that, having to wait 2300 years until the cleansing of the sanctuary, which
Daniel knew meant the time of God’s judgment, was difficult to bear, as he was told: “...Understand, O
son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision” (Dan 8:17). Daniel fainted and was sick several
days (Daniel 8:27).
The angel explained to Daniel that seventy weeks were determined for his people Israel (Daniel 9:24).
Seventy weeks in Bible prophecy is equivalent to 490 years.
70 x 7 = 490 Years
Now if we add the 490 years of Daniel 9:24 to the chronological year 3700 when Cyrus decreed the
rebuilding of the temple, it will take us to the chronological year 4190. This was the year when the
prophecy of Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled. Namely, that the time determined for the people of Israel was over.
The Hebrews had forfeited the blessing of the Gospel and it was given over to the Gentiles. Israel sealed
their rejection of the Gospel; firstly because they crucified the Lord Jesus and secondly because they had
martyred Stephen in the year 4190 which corresponds to the year 34 A.D.
3700 + 490 = 4190
In the chronological year 6000 the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 regarding the 2300 years was fulfilled. This
was the year 1844 A.D. when the judgment began in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Now, in order to
corroborate that the year 6000 is equivalent to the year 1844 A.D., let us do an arithmetical subtraction.
Let us subtract from the chronological year 6000 of the prophecy in Daniel 8:14 the chronological year
4190 of the prophecy in Daniel 9:24. The difference is a total of 1810 years.
6000 - 4190 = 1810 years
426
Now because the chronological year 4190 is equivalent to the year 34 A.D., if we add to the year 34 A.D.
those 1810 years, which is the mathematical difference of the previous subtraction, then we reach the year
1844 A.D. Therefore 1844 A.D. was not only the year 6000, but also the year when the prophecy of the
2300 years of Daniel 8:14 was fulfilled and Judgment was inaugurated by our High Priest Jesus in the
Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary.
70 x 7 = 490 years
3700 + 490 = 4190
6000 - 4190 = 1810 years
A.D. 34 + 1810 = 1844 A.D.
Isaiah’s Prophecy of Jesus’ Birth Fulfilled in 4153 A.M. (3 B.C.)
Isaiah prophesied about “the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace,” given to us as a
child (Isaiah 9:6). This prophecy was fulfilled in the chronological year 4153. Let us do some calculations
to confirm the date of Jesus’ birth. The Lord Jesus was baptized in the chronological year 4183 at the age
of 30 years (Luke 3:23). By knowing the prophecies of Daniel we can calculate the exact year when the
Lord was born. That is how the faithful prophets, the shepherds, and the wise men from the east knew
about Jesus’ birth at the exact time of the prophecy’s fulfillment. Knowing that the Lord Jesus was
baptized in the chronological year 4183, we then subtract from it the 30 years of the Lord’s age on the day
of His baptism to give us the chronological year 4153 when He was born.
4183 - 30 = 4153
Given that the chronological year 6000 corresponds to the year 1844 A.D., biblical chronology will also
confirm that the Lord Jesus’ birth year 4153 is the equivalent to the calendar year 3 B.C. Once again we
do an arithmetical subtraction. We subtract from the chronological year 6000 the chronological year 4153
to give us a difference of 1847 years. Now to convert the chronological year 4153 into our current
calendar we subtract from the year 1844 A.D. those 1847 years. Therefore, the chronological year 4153
equals the year 3 B.C. of our current calendar when the Lord Jesus was born.
6000 - 4153 = 1847 years
1844 A.D. - 1847 =3 B.C.
Daniel’s Prophecy of Messiah Prince Fulfilled in 4183 A.M. (27 A.D.)
Having understood that the year 1844 A.D. was the year when the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 was fulfilled
and that it was exactly the year 6000, it will also be corroborated that the year 27 A.D. was the year when
the Lord Jesus, the Messiah Prince prophesied in Daniel 9:24-25, was anointed. Daniel prophesied that
the anointing of the Messiah would take place when 69 prophetic weeks or 483 years had passed. This
427
magnificent event took place in the chronological year 4183 when our Lord Jesus was anointed by the
Holy Spirit (Luke 3:22) (Review charts).
Let us do some arithmetic calculations. First, we multiply the 69 prophetic weeks by 7 days to give us a
total 483 days or prophetic years. Then, if we add the 483 years to the chronological year 3700 (year
when the prophecy set off), we find that it takes us to the chronological year 4183 when the Messiah was
anointed.
69 x 7 = 483 years
3700 + 483 = 4183
Now if from the chronological year 6000 we subtract the chronological year 4183 when our Lord Jesus
was baptized, we get a difference of 1817 years.
But now we are going to use the year 1844 A.D. of our modern calendar in combination with the
difference of those two chronological years (6000-4183 = 1817) to confirm that the year 27 A.D. is the
exact date when the Lord Jesus was anointed. This process will further confirm the truthfulness of the
year 1844 A.D. as the exact date for the fulfillment of Daniel 8:14. Up to this point, we have rightfully
ascertained that the chronological year 6000 is equivalent to the year 1844 A.D., and now we will see
how that year also confirms the date of the Lord’s anointing. The arithmetic once again is easy to
understand; all we need to do is subtract from the year 1844 A.D. those 1817 years and it will give us a
difference of 27 A.D., which was the year when the Messiah Jesus was baptized and anointed.
6000 - 4183 = 1817 years
1844 A.D. - 1817 years = 27 A.D.
What was the Year 456 B.C.?
It has been shown in chapter 7 of this book that in the chronological year 3700 Isaiah’s prophecy about
King Cyrus was fulfilled. In that year King Cyrus issued the decree to build the temple and to liberate
Israel from Babylonian captivity. To Daniel it was revealed that the year 3700 when Cyrus issued the
magnanimous decree, (“the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” Daniel
9:25) was the date to begin counting the years until the manifestation of the Messiah.
To understand Cyrus’ chronological year 3700 in our modern calendar we have to resort to the Biblical
data that has been given us regarding the time when the Lord Jesus was anointed. We know that Jesus was
anointed to the ministry in the chronological year 4183, which corresponds to our modern calendar year
27 A.D.
To Daniel it was revealed that the Messiah would be manifested to Israel when 483 years would have
passed. This prophecy was fulfilled in the year 4183 (27 A.D.) when Jesus was baptized. Now to confirm
the exact year when Cyrus performed all the pleasure of God (Isaiah 44:28) by issuing the decreed we
work with the number 27 and 483. Therefore, from the year 27A.D. we subtract those 483 years and it
will take us to the corresponding year 456 B.C. of our current world calendar.
428
A.D. 27 - 483 = 456 B.C.
Now we understand that the year 3700 when Cyrus granted Israel’s freedom and the right to rebuild the
temple (Isaiah 44:28;45:13) corresponds to the year 456 B.C., the starting date of Daniel 8:14. This
prophecy will be further developed in a later chapter. But for the moment let us corroborate that date from
another arithmetical point of view.
At this point you will understand how vital it is to rely solely on the Word of God. If from the
chronological year 6000 we subtract the chronological year 3700 it gives us the difference of 2300 years
of Daniel 8:14. Now, if we subtract from 1844 A.D. those 2300 years we get the difference of 456 B.C.
6000 - 3700 = 2300 years
1844 A.D. - 2300 = 456 B.C.
Prophecy of the Lord Jesus’s Sacrifice Fulfilled in 4187 A.M. (31 A.D.)
To Daniel it was revealed that starting from the year when Cyrus decreed to restore Jerusalem until the
sacrifice of the Messiah there would be sixty nine and a half prophetic weeks. Daniel 9:25-27 reveals that
the Messiah was sacrificed in the middle of the prophetic week number 70; that is, in the middle of the
last seven years of the overall period of 490 years determined for the Jews. The middle of 7 can neither be
4 nor 3 but 3.5. Therefore, the year 31 A.D. is the year that fulfils the prophecy and it has to be taken from
the first part of the year 31 A.D., which corresponds to the chronological year 4187.
Given that the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 was fulfilled in the chronological year 6000 (1844 A.D.), we
subtract from 6000 the chronological year 4187 of Jesus’ crucifixion to get the difference of 1813 years.
Then to convert the chronological year 4187 into our modern calendar year we subtract from our calendar
year 1844 A.D. those 1813 years to give us the difference of 31 A.D.
6000 - 4187 = 1813 years
1844 A.D. - 1813 =31 A.D.
Once again this biblical chronology confirms the truthfulness of our faith in the year 31 A.D. as the year
when our Lord Jesus was sacrificed.
Gospel to Gentiles Year 4190 A.M. (34 A.D.)
Daniel was told by the angel: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to
finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring
in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy” (Daniel
9:24).
Those 70 prophetic weeks represent a span of 490 years for the Gospel to be preached to the people of
Israel, until they would it and seal their rejection with the persecution of the church, and in particular with
the stoning to death of Stephen (Acts 7:59). Paul, who later converted to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus,
429
consented to Stephen’s death: “at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at
Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the
apostles” (Acts 8:1). Moreover, Paul “made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling
men and women committed them to prison” (Acts 8:3). From then on the everlasting righteousness
spoken of by Daniel was preached to the Gentiles as the 490 years or 70 prophetic weeks of Daniel 9:24
had been fulfilled for the people of Israel. “Therefore they that were scattered abroad went everywhere
preaching the word (Acts 8:4).
Applying Ezekiel’s principle that in prophecy a day is equivalent to a year, we conclude that Daniel is
speaking of 490 years assigned for the Gospel to be preached to the people of Israel. Those 490 years
were cut off from the longer period of 2300 years, and they are also counted from the chronological year
3700 when Cyrus decreed to restore and to build Jerusalem. If we add the 490 years to the chronological
year 3700 of Daniel 9:24 we come to the chronological year 4190.
70x 7 =490
3700 + 490 = 4190
To convert the chronological year 4190 into the current calendar system we subtract from the
chronological year 6000 the chronological year 4190 to get a difference of 1810 years. Then, from the
year 1844 A.D. we subtract those 1810 years and it will rightly take us to the year 34 A.D. when the
Gospel was taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles.
6000 - 4190 = 1810 years
1844 A.D. -1810 = 34 A.D.
Chart of Prophetic Calculations
King Cyrus’ Temple’s 6000 - 3700 = 2300 | Daniel 8:14 3700 A.M. (456
Decree Foundation Daniel 9:25 B.C.)
3700 = 456 B.C. A.D. 1844 - 2300 =
456 B.C.
2nd Jewish Temple Finished FROM GOING Daniel 9:25 3749 A.M. (407
Temple FORTH OF B.C.)
7x7 = 49 Years 3700 + 49 = 3749 | DECREE
6000 - 3749 = 2251
1844 A.D. -2251 =
407
Jesus’ Birth The year of Jesus’ | 4183 - 30 = 4153 Luke 3:23 4153 A.M. (3
Baptism in 4183 Jesus Birth Year B.C.)
A.M. He was 30
430
years old
6000 - 4153 = 1847
1844 A.D. - 1847 =
3 B.C.
Jesus in the Jesus was 12 6000-4165 = 1835 Luke 2:41 4165 A.M. (9
Temple Years of Age Luke 2:42 A.D.)
1844 A.D.-1835= 9
A.D.
Anointment of Jesus ANOINT THE Daniel 9:24, 25 4183 A.M. (27
MOST HOLY 6000 A.D.)
69 weeks Cyrus’ decree - 4183 = 1817A.D.
3700 + 483 =
69x7 = 483 Years | 4183 (27A.D.) 1844 - 1817 Years
=27A.D.
Crucifixion of 69 x 7= 483 Half | MESSIAH Daniel 9:27 4187 A.M. (31
Jesus week equals 3.5 CAUSED A.D.)
SACRIFICE TO
3'/5 “weeks” 483 +3.5=486.5 | CEASE
(31 A.D.)
6000 - 4186.5 =
1813.5
1844 A.D. - 1813.5
= 30.5
OR 31 (Half of 7 is
3'/3)
Martyrdom of 3700 + 490 = 6000 - 4190 = 1810 | Daniel 9:24 4190 A.M. (34
Stephen 4190 (34 A.D.) A.D.)
1844 A.D. -1810 =
70 Weeks 34 A.D.
70 x 7= 490 Years GOSPEL TO
GENTILES
INVESTIGATIVE | TIME OF THE 6000 - 4190 = 1810 | Daniel 8:14 6000 A.M. (1844
JUDGMENT END AD)
2300 - 490 = 1810
6000 = 1844 A.D. | 3700 + 2300 = (see Stephens
6000 (1844 A.D.) | Stoning year)
A.D. 34 + 1810 =
1844 A.D.
431
The following chart is to simplify the chronology and prophecy of Daniel 8:14 regarding the Messiah.
DANIEL: &: 14
GH Eres cies, GexeTy Fe19M) 00m
70 Weeks
490 Years 1810 Years
432
CHAPTER TWENTY
BATTLES AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Judeo-Christian Roots
As the persecution against the church broke out in Jerusalem in 4190 (34 A.D.), the church widened its
horizons and spread abroad. These persecuted Christians, who were mainly Jews, had had their roots in
the patriarchal church of Old Testament times. Isaiah referred to this church as “the branch of the LORD”
(Isaiah 4:2). Paul, being a Jew, referred to the Israelite church as his kinsmen, the ones to whom belong
the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises
(Romans 9:4). Christ was born into the Jewish religion. It was of the Jews, “of whom concerning the flesh
Christ came” (Romans 9:5). No wonder, Paul desires that his kinsmen, the Jews, were all saved (Romans
9:3). But he recognizes that “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Romans 9:6), “Neither, because
they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children” (Romans 9:7). However, Paul confirmed the fact that
God reserved for Him a residue of faithful Jews; he quotes Isaiah: “Esaias also crieth concerning Israel,
Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved” (Romans
9:27). It was God’s doing, as Paul continues: “And as Esaias said before, except the Lord of Sabaoth had
left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha” (Romans 9:29).
Minutes before his execution in 4190 Stephen preached of what he termed: “The church in the wilderness”
(Acts 7:38), referring to the Jewish religion. Stephen spoke of them as the descendants of Israel; that is,
the “fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us” (Acts 7:38). Following the same train of
thought, Paul asks “What advantage then hath the Jew?” (Romans 3:1), invariably, the evangelist
responds to this question, and says: “Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed
the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2). But some would argue contrarily, and say: “For what if some did not
believe?” (Romans 3:3). Then Paul casts a rhetorical question: “Shall their unbelief make the faith of God
without effect?” (Romans 3:3) to which, he exclaims: “God forbid” (Romans 3:4).
Did the majority of the Jews accept the Lord Jesus as their Creator God? No! But, I know of one Jew who
accepted Jesus for what He is... John said: “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us
an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus
Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life” (1 John 5:20). To the rest of the Jews Paul rehearsed the
words of Isaiah who prophesied of the Lord Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross: “All day long I have stretched
forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people” (Romans 10:21, see also Isaiah 65:2).
Now the question is... Are we going to deem of no validity the oracles of God committed to the Jews
because of their unbelief and rejection of the Messiah? Take, for instance, this oracle: “Remember the
Sabbath day to keep it holy... The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God” (Exodus 20:8, 10).
Are we going to refrain from keeping Saturday holy because it is an emblem of those who rejected the
Lord Jesus, the Jews? Please understand that God’s seventh day of rest was not only given to the Jews but
to all the human race; it was given by God at the outset of time from the creation week; thus the
Scriptures read: “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all
433
his work which God created and made” (Genesis 2: 3). That is why Paul, the Christian Jew, continued
keeping Saturday as the only true Day of the Lord when he was in Antioch (Acts 13:14), in Jerusalem
(Acts 13:27), in the synagogues, with the Gentiles (Acts 13:42,44; 15:21), in Philippi of Macedonia (Acts
16:12,13), in the synagogue of the Jews at Thessalonica (Acts 17:1,2), and in Corinth he persuaded the
Jews and the Greeks every Sabbath (Acts 18:1,4).
In his appeal to the church in Rome, Paul counsels Christians not to become boastful by thinking
themselves better than the Jews and not to pride themselves as having achieved a higher status than that of
the Jews (see Romans chapter 11). With such counsel Paul is urging the Christian Church to shun the evil
of nationalism that indoctrinates its adherents with ideas of superiority and supremacy over others. The
apostle exhorts us with the words: “And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild
olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
boast not against the branches...” (Romans 11:17-18); that is, do not boast against the Jews who
disobeyed the Scriptures and rejected the Messiah.
Arrogant boasting by later Christians resulted in the persecution of the Jews. They were ostracized as
most detested pests because of their rejection and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. But of course, the
persecution was not intended against the Jews only, but against any Christian church that adhered to the
faith of the apostles who were solely Jews. Therefore, it is vital that we follow Paul’s exhortation to the
Gentile Christian Church not to boast against its roots: “For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy:
and if the root be holy, so are the branches” (Romans 11:16).
The Rock Upon Which the Church Stands
Reader, if you are a Roman Catholic, do you believe it is possible that the head of the church might be a
mere fallen man? The Papacy teaches so! Had that been the case, the Christian Church would have ceased
to exist a long time ago. But you may ask: Who is that Rock that the Lord Jesus speaks of when He says
“upon this Rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? (Matt. 16:18).
Paul gives the answer when he speaks of the church in Moses’ time: “And did all drink the same spiritual
drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians
10:4). The only One upon Whom the gates of hell (the grave) did not prevail was the Lord Jesus.
Moreover, it was prophesied of Him that His body would not undergo decay in the tomb: “For thou wilt
not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Psalms 16:10).
Therefore, Peter explained what David had prophesied about the Lord Jesus: “He seeing this before spake
of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This
Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses” (Acts 2:31-32).
The Christian Church believers were honored to inherit the knowledge of salvation from the Jewish
nation. The true Christians were not boastful, and therefore did not change the Commandments of God.
They didn’t attempt to replace the Lord Jesus as the Head of the Church. Because of their loyalty to God,
thousands of those faithful witnesses were put to death; they rest in their graves until resurrection day;
“Of whom the world was not worthy” (Hebrews 11:38). Yet, of them it is also written: “Blessed are the
dead which die in the Lord... their works do follow them” (Revelation 14:13).
434
Although they were slain, their testimony remains as an encouragement for us to be faithful. James was
killed with the sword (Acts 12:2), Peter was killed stretching forth his hands as he was crucified (John
21:17-19), “others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings... they were stoned, they were sawn
asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins;
being destitute, afflicted, tormented” (Hebrews 11:26-37). John was an outcast on the island of Patmos
“for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 1:9). And Paul’s final
encouragement for the young Timothy was: “Watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of
an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my
departure is at hand” (2 Timothy 4:5-6).
The Mystery of Iniquity Unmasked
From the year 4190 A.M. (34 A.D.) it was fulfilled what the Lord Jesus had prophesied, that: “the
salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles” (Acts 28:28). The Lord Jesus told His hearers: “Did ye never
read in the scriptures, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner:
this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?’ Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God
shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt. 21:42-43).
The apostles were persecuted and killed, just as the Lord Jesus suffered afflictions and torture, suffering
the death of the cross. Our Lord had warned His young church concerning what lay ahead for their lives,
saying: “if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?” (Luke 23:31). But physical
persecution was nothing compared to the cunning deceptions of the religious leaders that infiltrated the
Christian Church to bring them into subjection. The Lord Jesus had also counseled: “Beware of false
prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15).
Those wolves in sheep’s clothing were in operation in the days of Paul, who wrote: “For the mystery of
iniquity doth already work” (2 Thessalonians 2:7). Nonetheless, the apostle encouraged the church to
search the Scriptures, advising them that the second coming of the Lord would not occur until “there
come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thessalonians 2:3).
Here there is no reference to Judas Iscariot as the son of perdition, although he also received that woeful
title (John 17:12). It is referring to a religious system commanded by a hierarchy represented by one “who
opposeth and exalted himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth
in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4).
The man of perdition is a portrayal of a religious hierarchy commanded by a visible head as its leader
who encourages its followers into worshipping him.
Remember that in the early Christian Church none of the faithful Jews ever received adoration from their
fellow brothers. For example the faithful Peter, when he visited for the first time a Gentile centurion,
“Comelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him... Peter stopped him, saying, Stand up;
I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:25-26). Peter gave us an example of faithfulness to God by refraining
from worshipping any created being. Not even the holy angels allowed themselves to be worshipped
(Revelation 19:10). We must only worship God (Matt. 4:10; Revelation 14:7; Revelation 22:9).
435
The Medieval Church State
When Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire granted special favors to the Roman Catholic
institution in A.D. 313, he was connecting with insiders of his own state religion. He wrote to Anulinus,
proconsul of Africa: “... it is our wish that when you receive this letter, if any of these things belonged to
the Catholic Church of the Christians, in any city or in other places, you shall cause them to be restored
immediately to their churches.”
In that same year Constantine who received insider information regarding his church and state religion
and who felt that their newly-found church was being threatened by Bible-believing Christians and the
power of the Gospel of truth, he wrote to Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage: “...since I have learned that
some men of unstable mind wish to turn the people from the most holy and Catholic Church by shameful
and corrupt courses, know that I have given command to Anulinus... that they should not tolerate this if it
happened.”
In connection with the apostate bishops who favored the cause for Sunday worship, Emperor Constantine
on 7th March A.D. 321 signed into law the state recognition of Sunday as the day of rest. He wrote to
Elpidius: “All judges, city people and craftsmen shall rest on the venerable day of the sun”. Such
recognition was to advance the Catholic religion, as they affirmed: “We hold our common assembly on
the day of the sun because it is the first day on which God put to flight darkness and chaos and made the
world, and on the same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead...” Bear in mind that God did not
approve of such alteration of His Law of Ten Commandments, but it was prophesied that the mystery of
iniquity would attempt to change God’s Laws (Daniel 7:25).
From Constantine and onward, every Roman Emperor was zealous for advancing the progress of their
newly formed church/state religion. The Roman Emperors themselves were responsible for officially
establishing the Roman Catholic Church; it was the Emperors who gave the Papal church its current name
‘Catholic’. Emperor Theodosius, who praised his newly established church/state religion, wrote in A.D.
380: “We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the
others, since, in our judgment, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the
ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches.
They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the
punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of Heaven, shall decide to inflict.” With such
a menacing decree, Theodosius thought to stop the progress of the true Christian faith by threatening
those who dared to obey God rather than men, who, under persecution, gathered together to worship God
in their homes.
The Roman Emperor Zeno acted like those who manufacture a graven image and expect to receive
protection from it, the work of their hands (Isaiah 45:20; Isaiah 46:6, 7). The emperors had created a
religious system in the hope that it would grant them relief from their worst fears of extinction as an
empire. Zeno wrote in A.D. 482 that their Roman Empire owed its continued existence to the Catholic
Church: “The Emperor Zeno... to the very reverend bishops and clergy, and the monks and the people
throughout Alexandria, Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis. We are convinced that the source and stay of our
sovereignty, its strength and impregnable safeguard, is that only genuine and true faith...We therefore
endeavor night and day by every means, by prayer, by strenuous exertions, by legislation, to promote in
436
every part the increase of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the undefiable and immortal mother of
our realm...” How absurd, the emperors created their own mother in order to receive protection from her.
The establishment of such a system of iniquity was not the product of an overnight effort. It took a long
time and supernatural efforts. Yet, the Roman Catholic Papacy was favored by the Roman emperors, and
very subtly and treacherously the Papacy overturned the roles; from being in subjection to the empire they
became lords as they took over the empire’s rule. It was the Roman Emperor Justinian who championed
the cause for the Papacy’s temporal power. Thus, “In the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Empire,
Justinian holds the like place that Constantine and Theodosius occupy in the establishment of the Catholic
Church.”
Jewish Heritage Upholds Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone
Notice that the prophets prophesied of the Lord Jesus as being the Corner Stone of the spiritual temple of
believers. Thus, David prophesied of the Lord, saying: “The stone which the builders refused is become
the head stone of the corner” (Psalms 118:22). Isaiah also prophesied of Him: “Therefore thus saith the
Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure
foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste” (Isaiah 28:16). Peter is not the head of the church, but
he identified the real Head, our Lord Jesus, when he proclaimed: “This is the stone which was set at
nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for
there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12 see
also 1 Peter 2:5-7).
The whole matter that we have been saying is that the first Christians and the church leaders were Jews.
They, however, did not boast or for that matter did not take upon themselves the authority to change or
dispose of the oracles of God. They were ready to die for their faith rather than to modify God’s
Commandments; as Peter said: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). In that same line of
thought James exhorted “the twelve tribes scattered abroad” (James 1:1) with the words: “so speak ye,
and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (James 2:12). “For whosoever shall keep the
whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). Therefore, if God’s judgment is
going to be based on the Ten Commandments, how much more important it is to obey God rather than
men. Furthermore, our Savior did not change the Jewish milestones, as he said: “Think not that I am come
to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17).
Notice that the Word of God presents God as the foundation stone upon which the Christian Church is
founded. The Cornerstone is neither any of God’s disciples nor any human system. Therefore, Paul
explains that the Head of the church is Jesus: “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). The Christian Church is therefore “built upon the foundation
of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20).
437
Heinous Crimes Against Humanity
When the Papal system came into power, which lasted for a period of 1260 years, they created villainous
laws of impunity for their clergy so that their leaders could commit crimes against humanity and go
unpunished. Very appropriately it is said of such a system:
“The noontide of the papacy was the world's moral midnight. The Holy Scriptures were almost unknown,
not only to the people, but to the priests. Like the Pharisees of old, the papist leaders hated the light which
would reveal their sins. God's law, the standard of righteousness, having been removed, they exercised
power without limit, and practiced vice without restraint.”
The infamous Pope Boniface in A.D.1302 wrote: “If, therefore, the earthly power err, it shall be judged
by the spiritual power; and if a lesser power err, it shall be judged by a greater. But if the supreme power
err, it can only be judged by God, not by man. Furthermore we declare, state, define and pronounce that it
is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” But the
Papal system only protects those who are accomplices of their vices. Even in their retirement years, their
own cannon law gives the clergy impunity, as long as they adhere to their vows of obedience to the pope.
During the rule of Benedict of Nursia, who founded his own monastery for the preparation of the Catholic
priesthood, he wrote regarding their clergy: “Indeed it is not allowed to the monks to have bodies or wills
in their own power.” If the Papacy can achieve the brainwashing of those young students they can rob
them of their free will, and thus the senior priests can have control over the young students’ minds and
bodies. Now the end result is that the crimes committed by Catholic hierarchical authorities are learned
and practiced by the inferior clergy. Then, the crimes of sexual abuse that begin in the Catholic
monasteries continue with their vicious cycle in the greater society. Consequently, their priests rape and
abuse those upon whom they exert authority and power. Thus, much of society’s sexual deviation breaks
out from these brainwashing centers: the Catholic monasteries and convents. Yet those crimes go
unpunished.
This brainwashing system, the Papacy, invented the deviant doctrine and practice of compulsory celibacy
that forbids their clergy from expressing their affection toward the opposite sex in holy matrimony. This
practice encourages the many deviant practices among the clergy. The Word of God clearly states that
God does not force a person to remain celibate, but rather it counsels: “if they cannot contain, let them
marry: for it is better to marry than to burn” (1 Corinthians 7:9). Nonetheless, the Papacy’s enforced
celibacy incites their clergy to burn in their immoral practices. Yet, the Word of God uncovers the
immorality of such a world religious system with the words: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in
the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils”
(1Timoty 4:1), “forbidding to marry” (1 Timothy 4:3).
Moreover, the Word of God condemns this idolatrous system as the initiator of homosexual practices
because they “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man
(Romans 1:23). Therefore, they dishonored their own bodies between themselves (Romans 1:24), and
they practiced “vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward
another; men with men ...” (Romans 1:26-27).
438
Heresies of a New Empire
The worldwide mystery of iniquity, the Papacy, got rid of the doctrine that proclaims the Lord Jesus as
the Head of the Christian Church and established their visible head the Pope, in that role. The papacy also
encourages the nations to kneel and worship the pope. See, for instance, the ecumenical meeting of Assisi
in 1986 when world religious leaders worshipped the pope. The man of sin not only receives worship but
also fosters pagan doctrines throughout the whole world. This iniquitous system propagated these false
doctrines from within the Christian Church. Peter calls them: “false teachers among you, who privily shall
bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord..." (2 Peter 2:1). This system has been very subtle in
their denial of the preeminence of the Lord Jesus. They introduced the heresy of a mediatrix, a woman
mediator for humanity, while the Holy Scriptures leave no doubt as to who the only Mediator is: “For
there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a
ransom for all, to be testified in due time” (1 Timothy 2:5-6).
The medieval Papacy adopted the heresy of the immortality of the soul from the pagan philosopher Plato
whose name is still in vogue in Catholic homilies around the world:
“Plato had taught that the souls of heroes, of illustrious men, and eminent philosophers, alone, ascended
after death into the mansions of light and felicity, while those of the generality, weighed down by their
lusts and passions, sunk into the infernal regions, whence they were not permitted to emerge before they
were purified... Hence a notion prevailed that only the martyrs entered upon a state of happiness
immediately after death; and that for the rest, a certain obscure region was assigned...This is the origin of
the Catholic Purgatory.”
The old serpent called the Devil and Satan (Revelation 12:9) who deceived Eve with the lie: “tye shall not
surely die” (Genesis 3:4) also employed through his right arm the Roman Papacy, his ancient deception of
the immortality of the soul to introduce the heresy of praying to the spirits of the dead. This iniquitous
system led their adherents to subtly reject the Lord Jesus as the only Mediator in Heaven by adopting the
blasphemous practice of praying to the spirits of their dead. The Word of God clearly states of these
spirits that “they are the spirits of devils, working miracles...” (Revelation 16:14).
Thus: “Many who professed conversion still clung to the tenets of their pagan philosophy, and not only
continued its study themselves, but urged it upon others as a means of extending their influence among
the heathen. Serious errors were thus introduced into the Christian faith. Prominent among these was the
belief in man's natural immortality and his consciousness in death. This doctrine laid the foundation upon
which Rome established the invocation of saints and the adoration of the virgin Mary. From this sprung
also the heresy of eternal torment for the finally impenitent, which was early incorporated into the papal
faith. Then the way was prepared for the introduction of still another invention of paganism, which Rome
named purgatory, and employed to terrify the credulous and superstitious multitudes. By this heresy is
affirmed the existence of a place of torment, in which the souls of such as have not merited eternal
damnation are to suffer punishment for their sins, and from which, when freed from impurity, they are
admitted to Heaven.”
Satan continues to deceive humanity through the false doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Firstly, by
the curia’s canonization of eminent Catholics who excelled in the formation of their pagan theology, such
as Augustine and Aquinas, or by canonizing those who implemented the inquisition in order to defend the
439
Catholic tradition. Secondly, by repeating in their homilies the names of infidels like Socrates, Plato,
Ptolemy, etc., whose pagan philosophies paved the way for the formation of the Catholic tradition. Satan
struggles to maintain their allegiance to a wrong cause in the hope that one day their names will be
beatified and kept alive in the minds of future generations.
A Pretense to Infallibility
In order for the Papacy to defend their hideous crimes, their abuse of power, and their usurpation of God’s
authority, they invented the heresy of Papal infallibility so that they could perpetuate their system of
iniquity and brainwashing. In A.D. 1870 the infamous Pope Pius IX decreed: “We [i.e. pope Pius IX],
teach and define as a dogma divinely revealed: That the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra...is
endowed with that infallibility... defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.”
But the Papal system has erred time and again in morality and in doctrines; they have trampled and
changed the truth of God for humanism. The Vatican, their center of divination, is spoken of in
Revelation with the words: “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils...”
(Revelation 18:2). No wonder the Anglican Church in its beginning issued a strong letter against the
Papal heresies. The Bishop of Durham, John Cosin, wrote in A.D. 1660 “We... do not agree with the
Roman Catholics in anything whereunto they now endeavor to convert us.” Then he continued to
enumerate a long list of Papal heresies which the Anglicans strongly opposed:
“2- That the pope of Rome is the vicar-general of Christ, or that he hath a universal jurisdiction over all
Christians that shall be saved”. 8- That there is a purgatory after this life, wherein the souls of the dead are
punished, and from whence they are fetched out by the prayers and offerings of the living; and that there
is no salvation possibly to be had by any that will not believe as much.” 9- That the old saints departed,
and all those dead men and women whom the pope hath of late canonized for saints or shall hereafter do
so, whosoever they be, are and ought to be invocated by the religious prayers and devotions of all persons;
and that they who do not believe this as an article of their Catholic Faith cannot be saved.”
In view of the Word of God’s doctrines, papal infallibility cannot be substantiated. The following are
some of the major fallacies introduced by the Roman Papacy since it came to power. Take, for instance,
the doctrines of one of the greatest heretical theologians in the Catholic religion, Augustine. He wrote:
“God became man, that man might become God.” But what kind of god do they become? They become
like the prince of darkness sexually abusing thousands of innocent children, covering up these crimes
against humanity, and when they are revealed they simply wash their hands of them.
Then Thomas Aquinas taught that any man can work for his own salvation. Moreover, he went so far as
to say that Christ worked for his own salvation by his passion. He wrote: “Now it is clear that any man,
established in grace, who suffers for righteousness’ sake, merits salvation for himself by that very
suffering. Hence Christ through his passion merited salvation not only for himself but for all his
members.” This is wickedness! Does that aberration also imply that the Catholic clergy can inflict torture
and abuse on women and defenseless children because afterward their suffering will achieve them
salvation?
440
In the Catholic system, the more blasphemous a philosophical view is, the more acceptance it receives.
Consequently, the greatest humanist Aquinas, teaching people to be their own Saviors, was honored by
the Papacy to be the major exponent of their tradition. “The teaching of Aquinas was set up by Leo XIII
as the classical exposition of Catholic Doctrine.”
Impious Tradition Supplants Jesus as Savior
A system that cannot prove all things by the Word of God: the Word of God can do no other thing but to
defend its sophisms by its so called tradition. Moreover, it upholds tradition above the Holy Scriptures.
Our Lord Jesus strongly rebuked them when He told the Pharisees: “ye made the commandment of God
of none effect by your tradition” (Matt. 15:6).
Bear in mind that the Catholic tradition was not developed overnight; it took a long time. Their tradition
is the work of dirty politics; one introduces a bill and another signs it into law. Likewise, in the Papacy
they have developed a long tradition of practices and beliefs of basing their doctrines on the sophisms of
their predecessors; one introduces a sophism and another perfects it. Take, for instance, the sophism
introduced in A.D. 1854 by Pope Pius IX who alleged through his ‘immaculate conception theory’ that
Mary the mother of Jesus was conceived without original sin, a theory taken from the infamous Augustine.
A century later in 1950 A.D. Pope Pius XII made such a sophism a doctrine for the Catholics, but not
before he made improvements to it by the addition of another deception, the assumption of Mary. This
doctrine teaches that she was taken to heaven seconds after her death. Furthermore, he wrote a long list of
blasphemies against God when he rewarded their old sophism that: Mary is ‘the mother of God’ “...from
all eternity united in a mysterious way with Jesus Christ by one and the same decree of predestination,
immaculate in her conception, in her divine motherhood... who bore off the triumph over sin... finally
achieved, as the supreme crown of her privileges, that she should be preserved immune from the
corruption of the tomb, and, like her Son before her, having conquered death, should be carried up, in
body and soul, to the celestial glory of Heaven, to reign there as Queen at the right hand of her Son...”
This is heretical humanism of the highest order! The Papacy dares to take the prerogatives of God and
bestow them upon a human being whom they teach to be another Savior.
Using their tenet of the immortality of the soul, the Papacy formulated a major blow against Christianity.
With their blasphemous and heretical doctrine of the assumption of Mary, they have also dethroned, at
least from the minds of the common people, the eternal King of kings Jesus. They teach that Mary is the
mother of God; but according to the Word of God the Lord Jesus, as God, is “Without father, without
mother” (Hebrews 7:3). Their doctrine also maintains that she has been from eternity, while the Word of
God clearly proclaims that it is Jesus who alone fits the description of “having neither beginning of days”
(Hebrews 7:3) because only God is immortal and eternal. The Scriptures proclaim: “Now unto the King
eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen” (1 Timothy
1:17). According to the Papacy Mary was conceived without sin and triumphed over sin; but the Word of
God again affirms that only Jesus was without sin and triumphed over it: “He was in all points tempted
like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). They make Mary co-redeemer with Jesus as an “ally of
the Redeemer”, while the Word of God states that Jesus is the only Savior: “Neither is there salvation in
any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”
(Acts 4:12). And finally, in their thirst for usurping Jesus’ glory, the Papacy attributed to Mary the
441
prerogative of Divinity by claiming for her the Old Testament prophecy about the Lord Jesus: “For thou
wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Psalms. 16:10).
Battle Against the Heavenly Sanctuary
In 2666 A.M. Satan devised a scheme to annihilate from the earth the knowledge of the Law of God and
bring disrepute upon God’s Heavenly Sanctuary truth. When at the base of Mount Sinai Satan induced the
Israelites to make a molten calf, he introduced a humanistic style of worship that cast a shadow on the
Heavenly Sanctuary doctrine for the redemption of this world. Satan thought to eradicate from the face of
the earth God’s perfect knowledge about Heaven’s plan of salvation even before the people of God had
made a covenant with the Lord.
For a brief moment the Israelites were deceived with the idea that they were worshipping God by
sacrificing to the calf. But they were not ignorant of God’s displeasure regarding idolatry, as the Lord said
to Moses: “They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them...” (Exodus 32:8).
The sentence: “These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt”
(Exodus 32:4) referred to the abomination of the Egyptians. Satan intended to dethrone from the peoples’
hearts the true God and make them believe that every person on earth worships the same god.
When Moses made Israel drink of the unusual broth whose ingredients were nothing else but their molten
calf of gold and water (Exodus 32:20), he gave them a strong rebuke that applies even more so to the
children of God in the world today. The religions of the world, and more specifically the Catholic system,
teaches its adherents that they can drink the very blood of God in order to receive the blessings from the
sacrament.
Accordingly, the Papacy has introduced a system of worship that eradicates the truth about the Heavenly
Sanctuary doctrine by making people believe that by eating the Eucharist they are in a substantial way
eating God in their so called ‘Sacramentum Christus’ or Christi, which is Latin for ‘Sacrament of Christ’.
The word sacrament is not found in the Word of God, it is a Roman Catholic word that conveys a
superstitious belief referring to the act of conferring a special virtue on those who receive a sacrament, in
this case the Eucharist. Since the Middle Ages the Papacy has been teaching Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine of
Transubstantiation, the belief that the Catholic priest can convert the bread and wine into the body and
blood of Jesus. But such superstitious belief is nothing other than a copy of the Osirian Sacrament from
which the doctrine of the Eucharist is derived. The Osirian Sacrament is a cannibalistic practice in which
practitioners believe that virtues and powers of the person eaten can be absorbed by the eater. Charles
Chiniquy wrote in his autobiographical book:
“When a priest of Rome, I was bound, with all the Roman Catholics, to believe that Christ had taken His
own body, with His own hands, to His mouth; and that He had eaten Himself, not in a spiritual, but in a
substantial way! After eating Himself, He had given it to each of His disciples, who then ate Him also!!”
Before you read how the Catholic tenets have supplanted the doctrine of the Heavenly Sanctuary study
what the Word of God teaches about the sanctuary on earth. When the temple of Solomon was dedicated
in 3207, “...the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, into the oracle of
the house, to the Most Holy Place...” (1 Kings 8:6). “There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of
442
stone, which Moses put there at Horeb...” (1 Kings 8:9). The temple’s Most Holy Place which contained
the ark, was a representation of the true Sanctuary in Heaven, which is “the temple of God...where was
seen...the ark of his testament...” (Revelation 11:19). This is where Jesus is “a minister of the sanctuary,
and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man” (Hebrews 8:2).
Now notice how the Roman Papacy supplanted the Heavenly Sanctuary doctrine with the idolatrous
system of the Eucharist. Whenever Catholic priests perform the Eucharist, which they define as the
sacrifice of the mass, they do it on a long table denominated the altar, where they believe they are
carrying out the actual sacrifice of Christ. Right behind their altar, they have a coffer called in Latin the
Sacrarium, or Sacristy in English. This is a chest where they put the monstrance, which in turn is a golden
vessel in the form of a cross with a circular hollow in the middle with golden sunbeams where they
deposit and keep the consecrated host for adoration.
You see how sacrilegious, blasphemous and idolatrous such worship is. Either ignorantly or knowingly,
the Catholic priests are carrying out the role of anti-Christ. The sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was not carried
out many times but only once. It was carried out by Jesus Himself, not another “priest”. The Word of God
says: “...for this he did once, when he offered up himself’ (Hebrews 7:27). Moreover, the Lord Jesus is
not enclosed in a coffer by the whim of sinful men, nor is he on earth, but “The LORD is in his holy
temple, the LORD'S throne is in heaven...” (Psalms 11:4). The Lord is where He said He would return to.
The Bible says: “So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on
the right hand of God” (Mark 16:19).
In the idolatrous Roman Catholic system, their sacristy has supplanted the ark of the covenant of God,
their monstrance has supplanted the Ten Commandments of God, and by their crowning act of blasphemy,
their Eucharist has supplanted the Lord Jesus Himself. This is wickedness! Great multitudes of people
have been deceived with the Papal tenet that the real Lord of Heaven is in that circular wafer which is
nothing else but the adoration the sun-god Osiris. No wonder, brother Chiniquy expressed his horror
when he confessed:
“T have often been asked: Was it possible that you sincerely believed that the wafer could be changed into
God by you? And have you really worshipped that wafer as your Savior? To my shame, and to the shame
of poor humanity, I must say ‘Yes’.”
It was the Papacy who indoctrinated the people of all nations with the heresy that the sacrifice of Jesus is
carried out over and over again by the priest. The Word of God states that the Lord Jesus does not offer
himself often (Hebrews 9:25). It was a once for all sacrifice, or else He would have suffered many times
since the foundation of the world (Hebrews 9:26). But it is the Papacy’s murderous desire to keep Jesus,
if it were possible, always hanging on the cross, which is why they make a representation of a crucified
man, which they unhesitatingly teach is ‘Christ crucified’. Just to make it more palatable to the senses of
the ignorant people they place the ‘sacrificed god’ inside a monstrance in the form of a white round wafer
for people to come and worship. The alarmed man of God said:
“No words can give any idea of the pleasure I used to feel when alone, prostrated before the Christ whom
I had made at the morning Mass, I poured out my heart at His feet. It is impossible for those who have not
443
lived under those terrible illusions to understand with what confidence I spoke to the Christ who was then
before me...”
On the Seat of the Dragon
This system of wickedness has supplanted everything that is from God. The Roman Papacy has attempted
to change the day of rest from the seventh day Sabbath to the first day of the week Sunday, the day of
Osiris the sun-god (Daniel 7:25). And they did not hide it much from the sight of their followers because
they gave to their wafer god the roundness of their sun-god. No wonder the Catholic system fits the
Biblical description: “he shall speak great words against the most High” (Daniel 7:25). Then Paul
unmasks them and calls this system “the man of sin” and “son of perdition” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). And
quite correctly too, because he “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2
Thessalonians 2:4).
Moreover the Papacy sinks the whole world into further idolatry and blasphemy by encouraging the
multitudes to a mere man “holy father”. The Lord Jesus clearly commanded His church to “call no man
your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Matt. 23:9). But the man of sin
makes himself be called “holy father” when the only Holy Father is God in Heaven. The Lord Jesus said:
“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep
through thine own name those whom thou hast given me...” (John 17:11). And in Isaiah 9:6, our Savior is
called “The mighty God, The everlasting Father.”
The Mystery of Iniquity Exerts Power for 1260 Years
The Word of God reveals how the mystery of iniquity, the Roman Papacy, would exert its tyrannical
power for a period of 1260 years (Revelation 11:3; Revelation 12:6). Consequently, “the year A.D. 538,
which marks the conquest of Italy, the deliverance of Rome, and the destruction of the kingdom of the
Ostrogoths, is the true date which marks the establishment of the temporal authority of the papacy, and
the exercise of that authority as a world-power.”
Paul, who understood the prophecies of the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus, wrote: “Let no man
deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that
man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). John prophesied of this system of
iniquity when he wrote that “...the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority”
(Revelation 13:2). This system is also portrayed as a ‘beast;’ which in prophecy means kingdom (Daniel
7:23). Thus, John continues: “And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly
wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast” (Revelation 13:3). “Not till after the great
apostasy, and the long period of the reign of the "man of sin," can we look for the advent of our Lord. The
"man of sin," who is also styled the "mystery of iniquity,” the "son of perdition," and "that wicked,"
represents the papacy, which, as foretold in prophecy, was to maintain its supremacy for 1260 years. This
period ended in 1798.”
444
In reiterating the history of the mystery of iniquity, “the 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the
establishment of the papacy in A.D. 538, and would therefore terminate in 1798. At that time a French
army entered Rome, made the pope a prisoner, and he died in exile. Though a new pope was soon
afterward elected, the papal hierarchy has never since been able to wield the power which it before
possessed.”
It was Napoleon Bonaparte who ordered the French armies, commanded by General Berthier, to march
against Rome. Thus, the “French forces reached the outskirts of Rome on February 9, 1798, and six days
later they occupied the city itself without opposition. On February 20, Pius VI was carried into exile at the
hands of the French, signaling the end of the long period of papal dominance in European affairs.” Thus
we have that:
A.D. 1798 -
A.D. 538
= 1260 years
“The infliction of the deadly wound points to the downfall of the papacy in 1798. After this, says the
prophet, "his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast." Paul states plainly
that the "man of sin" will continue until the Second Advent. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8. To the very close of
time he will carry forward the work of deception. And the revelator declares, also referring to the papacy:
"All that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life"
(Revelation 13:8). In both the Old and the New World, the papacy will receive homage in the honor paid
to the Sunday institution, which rests solely upon the authority of the Roman Church.”
445
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
WHO TRAMPLED UPON GOD’S CHRONOLOGY
“And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High,
and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the
dividing of time. He shall think to change times and laws” Daniel 7:25.
The Calendar in the Time of Noah
In his schemes to cover up his system of iniquity, Satan changed the calendar through his right arm the
Papacy. This change confused the understanding of the Messianic prophecies and made it more difficult
for the faithful believer to understand the prophecies, even those prophecies that uncover the anti-Christ
wickedness.
Nevertheless, there has been one true calendar from the beginning of time. It has not changed in God’s
mind and it continues to be worthy of reckoning until the end of time.
Thus, in the Word of God we find many instances where God’s calendar comprehends the establishment
of days, months and years:
“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let
them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years” (Genesis 1:14).
The first place we find God’s calendar is at the time of the great world flood. The worldwide flood is
recounted in Genesis in terms of its duration in the number of days and months. It also gives us the year
when it happened: “In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of
the month” (Genesis 7:11).
Now it has been written that the flood began in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month.
Although the number of months that the flood waters prevailed over the surface of the earth is not stated
in the Bible, the Word of God reveals the number of days: “the waters prevailed upon the earth an
hundred and fifty days” (Genesis 7:24).
We know that the flood began on the second month and it lasted 150 days. Now the next verse will help
us understand that each month contains 30 days each: “And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the
seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). From the second month to
the seventh month we have a total of 5 months; then if we divide the 150 days by those 5 months we find
that a month in the Bible has 30 days:
150 +5 =30
446
Flood began 2nd month 17th day of the month | Genesis 7:11
The Ark rested on the | 7th Month 17th day of the month | Genesis 8:4
ground
Waters prevailed over | 150 Days Genesis 7:24
the earth
TOTAL 5 Months 150 Days
The Flood account reveals to us that God designed a calendar from the outset of time for the history of
our planet. The flood account does not explain that God designed years of 360 days, yet, it shows that
months have 30 days.
The Year Has Twelve Months
That the year has 12 months is understood by the reading of the Chronicles of King David who arranged
his armies in twelve courses “of every course were twenty and four thousand”, to serve him throughout
the year (1 Chronicles 27:1). Thus, each course with their officers “came in and went out month by month
throughout all the months of the year...” (1 Chronicles 27:1). Accordingly, for the first month was
Jashobeam (1 Chronicles 27:2), for the second month was Dodai (1 Chronicles 27:4), for the third month
was Benaiah (1 Chronicles 27:5), for the fourth month was Asahel (1 Chronicles 27:7), for the fifth month
was Shamhuth (1 Chronicles 27:8), for the sixth month was Ira (1 Chronicles 27: 9), for the seventh
month was Helez (1 Chronicles 27:10), for the eighth month was Sibbecai (1 Chronicles 27: 11), for the
ninth month was Abiezer (1 Chronicles 27:12), for the tenth month was Maharai (1 Chronicles 27:13), for
the eleventh month was Benaiah (1 Chronicles 27:14), and the last of the twelve captains for the twelfth
month was Heldai (1 Chronicles 27:15).
Ist | Abib Exodus 12:2; 13:4; Nisan: Esther 3:7,
Deuteronomy 16:1 Nehemiah 2:1
2nd _ | Zif 1 Kings 6:1 lyar
3rd_ | Sivan Esther 8:9 Sivan
4th |- Tammuz
5th | - Ab, Av
447
6th | - Elul
7th | Ethanim 1 Kings 8:2 Tishri
8th | Bul 1 Kings 6:38 Heshvan
9th | Chisleu Zechariah 7:1 Kislev
10th | Tebeth Esther 2:16 Nehemiah | Tebeth, Tebet
1:1
11th | Sebat Zechariah 1:7 Shebat, Shebet
12th | Adar Esther 3:7; 8:12; 9:1 Adar
Ezra 6:15
A Time for a Year
In the Word of God there is another way of calling years, and that is the term “times”. In the story of
Nebuchadnezzar we find that God communicated to the Babylonian king through a terrible dream that
foretold God’s punishment for the monarch. Daniel interpreted the king’s dream, which contains the
following sentence: “Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him: and
let seven times pass over him” (Daniel 4:16). The prophet also declared that the dream was true and
Nebuchadnezzar will be taken away from men and sent to live with the animals and eat grass (Daniel
4:25). All those things happened to this king for a period of seven years. The sentence was: “seven times
shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to
whomsoever he will” (Daniel 4:25).
Nebuchadnezzar failed to give all honour to God and when twelve months passed (Daniel 4:29) — that is a
complete year - the dream came true. He was driven from among men and roamed the fields with the
animals for seven years, so that his hairs grew to extreme proportions “like eagles’ feathers, and his nails
like birds’ claws” (Daniel 4:33). At the end of his ordeal, the monarch gives his personal testimony,
saying: “And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine
understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth
for ever...” (Daniel 4:34).
From the fact that the insane monarch’s physical appearance changed so dramatically it is evident that
those seven times refer to seven literal years. Now, Daniel and John both use the terms “time” and “times”
to refer to prophetic years.
448
A Day for a Year: 1260 Years of the Dark Ages
It has been presented that in Bible prophecy a day is equivalent to a literal year. Reiterating the topic, God
ordered the people of Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness as He commanded: “After the number of the days
in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even
forty years...” (Numbers 14:34). Centuries later God declared similarly: “...Thou shalt bear the iniquity
of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year” (Ezekiel 4:6). Now we will
apply that formula to help us understand the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation pertaining to the 1260
year period of the Papacy’s Dark Ages.
The same formula for understanding the prophetic periods by translating a day for a year will also help us
know how many days are in a month and how many days are in a year according to God’s calendar which
stands the test even until the end of time. For the Lord Jesus did not change any part of the Law nor the
Prophets. But first let us review what happened during those 1260 years of Papal domination. One writer
described this horrible period of the Dark Ages as follows:
“In the sixth century the papacy had become firmly established. Its seat of power was fixed in the
imperial city, and the bishop of Rome was declared to be the head over the entire church. Paganism had
given place to the papacy. The dragon had given to the beast "his power, and his seat, and great
authority." [REVELATION 13:2] And now began the 1260 years of papal oppression foretold in the
prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. [DANIEL 7:25; REVELATION 13:5-7.] Christians were forced
to choose, either to yield their integrity and accept the papal ceremonies and worship, or to wear away
their lives in dungeons or suffer death by the rack, the fagot, or the headsman's ax.”
Revelation 11:11 Three days and a half 3% The Spirit of life
Days entered into the two
witnesses
Daniel 7:25 A time, times and the dividing of time 3% He shall think to
Times change times and laws
Daniel 12:7 A time, times and a half 3% To scatter the power of
Times the holy people
Revelation 12:14 A time, times and half a time 3% The woman is
Times nourished
Revelation 11:2 42 Months The holy city shall they
tread under foot
Revelation 13:5 42 Months Power enforced for
forty and two months.
Revelation 11:3 1260 Days Two witnesses
prophesy in sackcloth
449
Revelation 12:6 1260 Days The woman fled into
the wilderness
“The accession of the Roman Church to power marked the beginning of the Dark Ages. As her power
increased, the darkness deepened. Faith was transferred from Christ, the true foundation, to the pope of
Rome. Instead of trusting in the Son of God for forgiveness of sins and for eternal salvation, the people
looked to the pope, and to the priests and prelates to whom he delegated authority. They were taught that
the pope was their earthly mediator, and that none could approach God except through him, and, further,
that he stood in the place of God to them, and was therefore to be implicitly obeyed. A deviation from his
requirements was sufficient cause for the severest punishment to be visited upon the bodies and souls of
the offenders. Thus the minds of the people were turned away from God to fallible, erring, and cruel men,
nay more, to the prince of darkness himself, who exercised his power through them.”
3 % Days Stand for 1260 Years
In Revelation 11:11 the Papal supremacy period is clearly termed as a period of three days and a half (3.5
days). Accordingly, adhering to the Word of God’s principle of understanding prophetic periods, we do
the calculations in line with the Biblical command to discover the meaning of the prophecies by taking
one day for a year (See Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6). But this is a special case because those three and a
half days represent three and a half years of 360 days, consequently:
3.5 x 360 = 1260
Furthermore, Revelation 11:11 speaks of those 1260 years of papal tyranny during the medieval period,
and it proclaims the glorious promise that the Word of God would come back to life after the 1260 years...
Time, Times and Half a Time is 1260 Years
In three occasions the Word of God mentions the phrase “time times and half a time”. All those terms
refer to the same period of 1260 years of papal supremacy. In Daniel 7:25 it is represented as a political
and religious power that spoke against God and persecuted the saints and endeavored to change times and
laws. The period is termed as time, times and dividing of time (Daniel 7:25; Daniel 12:7). Then in
Revelation 12:14 it speaks of a time, times and half a time as the period when the woman (Church) was
kept pure and free from Rome’s repression in the wilderness.
A Time
Times
Half Time (Daniel 7:25; Daniel 12:7 and Revelation 12:14)
Remember that “times” stand for years in Daniel and Revelation. Therefore a “time” is one year, “times”
equals two years and “half a time” stands for half a year. Given that in the Biblical calendar a year has
450
360 days, those three and a half times are three and a half sets of 360 days that will add up 1260 days,
which in turn stand for 1260 years of the Papacy’s Dark Ages of terror.
360 +
360
360
180 =
1260
As you can see, once again God’s Word is depicting the same period of Papal repression in terms of “time,
times and half a time,” so “he that hath an ear, let him hear” (Revelation 2:7) because it is presenting the
same Papal dominance of 1260 years from another angle.
42 Months Equivalent to 1260 Years
Whenever the Word of God reiterates a prophecy it denotes the urgency and seriousness of the matter.
Speaking of the same period of time during which the Papacy acquired temporal powers and tried to
silence the Word of God from prophesying and witnessing to the truth, Revelation discloses that this
oppressive Papal power would continue for 42 months (Revelation 11:2). It was during those 42 prophetic
months that the Papacy banned and prohibited the possession of the Old and New Testaments, threatening
those who would defy their oppressive authority to suffer the penalty of a torturous death. Yet the prophet
Isaiah proclaims: “the grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever”
(Isaiah 40:8). The Word of God is depicted as the two witnesses that prophesied in sackcloth during that
span of 1260 years (Revelation 11:3). It was also during that period of the Dark Ages that the oppressive
Papal power was given a mouth “speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him
to continue forty and two months” (Revelation 13:5).
Yet again God speaks in a symbolic language. Both Revelation 11:2 and Revelation 13:5 reiterate the
prophecy regarding the mystery of iniquity that persecuted the Christian Church and tried to obliterate the
truth and stopping it from reaching the common people.
To understand this prophecy we must rely on the Word of God calendar which only has months of 30
days. Therefore we shall multiply the 42 months by its 30 days and it will give us a result of 1260 days,
which in prophecy is equivalent to those dreadful 1260 years of Papal repression.
42 x 30 = 1260
The Prophetic Days Taken After True Biblical Calendar
Let us now notice how the following three charts help us clarify the fact that the year in Biblical times
comprised a period of 360 days. The Biblical calendar remains unchanged in God’s Holy and it helps us
understand the prophecies about the plan of salvation. The calendar that I refer to is the same that was
used by the antediluvian people, those contemporaries of Noah. This calendar must be understood by
God’s remnant people because it has due bearing for our comprehension of the events taking place right
451
in the time of the end. Therefore, the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation not only expose the Roman
Papacy’s kingdom of terror but also confirm that the calendar according to God should always constitute
years of 360 days.
Working with the figure 3.5 will help us understand that the calendar that God intended for us to use
today is the same calendar from the beginning of time. Revelation 11:9 and Revelation 11:11 unmask the
Papacy’s Dark Ages as 3.5 days, and in Daniel 7:25, Daniel 12:7 and Revelation 12:14 God once again
reveals this era of darkness with the terms “time, times and half a time’, or 3.5 times which we have seen
stand for the same period of 1260 years of Papal supremacy.
For the rest of the texts that speak of the same Dark Ages and which do not speak in terms of 3.5 days, let
us just do the division by either months or days and it will rightly guide us to the 3.5 figure. Thus, the 42
months of Revelation 11:2 and 13:5 divided by 12 months in a year give us the figure 3.5. Let us also
consider the 1260 days of Revelation 11:3 and 12:6: dividing 1260 days by 360 days in a year gives us
the same figure of 3.5.
Revelation 11: 2, Revelation 13:5 42 Months 42+12 = 3.5
Revelation 11: 3; Revelation 12:6 1260 Days 1260 + 360 =3.5
Our Lord Jesus honored what the prophets had written regarding God’s calendar. They had written in
relation to the true calendar which comprehends months of 30 days, years of 12 months and therefore
years of 360 days. The Lord Jesus did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets which contain the true
chronology and calendar. Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. Therefore, God expects us to
understand the Biblical calendar in order for us to corroborate the Bible prophecies. This calendar remains
as a true guide to enlighten God’s remnant church in the faith of Jesus until the very end of time. For that
reason, under God’s dispensation, a year is equivalent to 360 days. Therefore, by dividing 1260 days by
3.5 years we get years of 360 days. Consequently, a month contains 30 days; just divide 1260 days by 42
months = 30.
A YEAR = 1260 + 3.5 360 Days
A MONTH = 1260 + 42 30 Days
452
1260 Years of Medieval Darkness
Although the Darkest period of the history of this world was during the 1260 year reign of the medieval
Papacy, God raised great dignitaries of faith who proclaimed the Word of God and make it shine in the
midst of darkness. Examples of such men of renown are: the Germans Martin Luther and Melanchthon,
from Prague: John Huss and Jerome, the Swiss Ulric Zwingli, the Scot John Knox, the Englishmen: John
Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, John and Charles Wesley, the Huguenots of France.
They are such, “Of whom the world was not worthy” (Hebrews 11:38).
The Word of God Banned for 1260 years
The same Dark Ages period of 1260 years is depicted in the Word of God as 1260 days when the two
witnesses prophesied in sackcloth (Revelation 11:3). This was the period when the Word of God, depicted
as the two witnesses, the Old and New Testaments was proscribed under penalty of death. “During the
greater part of this period, God's witnesses remained in a state of obscurity. The papal power sought to
hide from the people the word of truth, and set before them false witnesses to contradict its testimony.
When the Word of God was proscribed by religious and secular authority; when its testimony was
perverted, and every effort made that men and demons could invent to turn the minds of the people from
it; when those who dared proclaim its sacred truths were hunted, betrayed, tortured, buried in dungeon
cells, martyred for their faith, or compelled to flee to mountain fastness, and to dens and caves of the
earth--then the faithful witnesses prophesied in sackcloth. Yet they continued their testimony throughout
the entire period of 1260 years. In the darkest times there were faithful men who loved God's word and
were jealous for His honor.”
The Word of God was banned because it reveals the Papacy’s schemes of deception and it reveals their
span of temporal power during the Middle Ages. This period is also portrayed as the period 1260 days
during which the woman flees into the wilderness. This is a reference to the Christian Church that had
been persecuted during that dreadful period of the Dark Ages (Revelation 12:6).
The Inquisition and Galileo Galilei
The Papacy not only had a problem with the calendar and biblical chronology but also with scientific
knowledge, especially the knowledge of the natural world that reveals what Rome tried to suppress: that
“the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork” (Psalms 19:1). The
Papacy was furiously suppressing all vestiges of scientific knowledge and wanted to continue to keep the
world in ignorance and superstition. Yet they could not stop God’s enlightenment of great minds like
Galileo Galilei who had the courage to stand for truth, even when that would cause him to be accused of
heresy for daring to think differently to the Papacy. Galileo believed that the earth rotates around the sun,
but the Papacy could not tolerate that teaching because their system of mind-enslavement would collapse.
They needed to propagate their superstitions emanating from the erroneous belief that the earth is the
center of the universe.
It was inconvenient for the Papacy to have astronomers believe that the earth is a 360° degree sphere that
moves around the sun. The Papacy was not willing to acknowledge that the center of the universe is the
453
Heavenly Sanctuary where “God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness” (Psalms 47:8). The pope is not
the king in the Kingdom of Heaven, neither is he king of the earth. As the Psalmist proclaims: “For God
is the King of all the earth...” (Psalms 47:7). God did not create a flat earth, but the Papacy kept people in
ignorance and fear deceived millions with such sophism. Yet the Word of God reveals that the earth is a
spherical planet:
“Tt is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that
stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in” (Isaiah 40:22).
In dreadful expectation of the papacy’s torturous death by burning alive at the stake, Galileo was forced
by the Inquisition in 1633 A.D. to recant and sign with his own hand the following retraction: “I abjure,
curse, and detest the error and heresy of the motion of the earth.” With indignation the preacher Chiniquy
who was rescued from the Catholic clergy said about Galileo: “That learned man had to degrade himself
by swearing a lie... Thus the wings of that giant eagle of Rome were clipped by the scissors of the pope.
But God would not allow that giant intellect to be entirely strangled by the bloody hands of that
implacable enemy of light and truth, the pope.”
God strengthened Galileo, and as he stood up from his humiliating kneeling position, he said: “Eppur si
muove”, “But it moves”, meaning that his retraction was not going to prevent the earth from rotating
around the sun. Yet, he was found guilty of heresy and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his
life.
John Huss
John Huss was sentenced to a most horrendous death; he was burnt alive at the stake by Roman Catholic
Church.
“Being again exhorted to retract, he replied, turning toward the people, "With what face, then, should I
behold the heavens? How should I look on those multitudes of men to whom I have preached the pure
gospel? No; I esteem their salvation more than this poor body, now appointed unto death.” Finally a
crown or mitre, on which were painted frightful figures of demons, and bearing the inscription, "The
Arch-Heretic," was placed upon his head. "Most joyfully," he said, "will I wear this crown of shame for
thy sake, O Lord Jesus, who for me didst wear a crown of thorns."
“He was now delivered up to the secular authorities, and led away to the place of execution. An immense
procession followed, hundreds of men at arms, priests and bishops in their costly robes, and the
inhabitants of Constance. When he had been fastened to the stake, and all was ready for the fire to be
lighted, the martyr was once more exhorted to save himself by renouncing his errors. "What errors," said
Huss, "shall I renounce? I know myself guilty of none. I call God to witness that all that I have written or
preached has been with the view of rescuing souls from sin and perdition; and, therefore, most joyfully
will I confirm with my blood that truth which I have written and preached. When the flames kindled
about him, he began to sing, "Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me," and so continued till his
voice was silenced forever.”
454
The Martyr Jerome
Because of his faith in the Word of God, Jerome, another faithful man was condemned, by the Catholic
prelates, to be burnt alive at the stake. On the day of his execution he was pleading with God for mercy as
he had previously recanted from his faith because of fear when he beheld Huss’ execution. At the stake
Jerome exclaimed: "Of all the sins that I have committed since my youth, none weigh so heavily upon my
mind, and cause me such poignant remorse, as that which I committed in this fatal place, when I approved
of the iniquitous sentence rendered against Wycliffe, and the holy martyr, John Huss, my master. Yes, I
confess it from my heart; and declare with horror that I disgracefully quailed, when, through a dread of
death, I condemned their doctrines. I therefore supplicate Almighty God to deign to pardon me my sins,
and this one in particular, the most heinous of all." “His last words, uttered as the flames rose about him,
were a prayer. "Lord, Almighty Father," he cried, "have pity on me, and pardon me my sins, for thou
knowest that I have always loved thy truth." His voice ceased, but his lips continued to move in prayer.”
John Wycliffe
John Wycliffe in his desire to reach out to the hungry multitudes with the Word of God, made it possible
for the first copies of the Word of God to circulate in the English language as he translated it from the
Latin version. However, Wycliffe’s daring task was not appreciated by an enraged Papacy that was thirsty
for any opponent’s blood. This man of God died a natural death, leaving behind a heritage of faithfulness
to the Word of God. “The papists had failed to work their will with Wycliffe during his life, and their
hatred could not be satisfied while his body rested quietly in the grave. By the decree of the Council of
Constance, more than forty years after his death his bones were exhumed and publicly burned, and the
ashes were thrown into a neighboring brook.”
William Tyndale
Englishman William Tyndale translated the Word of God in the early 16th century. The influence of his
translation still remains with us today in the form of the King James Version. This later translation relied
heavily upon Tyndale’s work. Tyndale was burned at the stake on 6 October, 1536. The Catholic prelates
condemned him to death in the flames after finding him guilty of treason against the Papacy. He was
killed for having translated the Word of God from the original Hebrew and Greek into the English
language. Of Tyndale it is written that he “was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Word of
God to his countrymen.” He was “A diligent student and an earnest seeker for truth, who had received the
Gospel from the Greek Testament of Erasmus. He fearlessly preached his convictions, urging that all
doctrines be tested by the Scriptures. To the papist claim that the church had given the Word of God, and
the church alone could explain it, Tyndale responded, "Do you know who taught the eagles to find their
prey? That same God teaches his hungry children to find their Father in his Word. Far from having given
us the Scriptures, it is you who have hidden them from us; it is you who burn those who teach them; and
if you could, you would burn the Scriptures themselves."
455
Who Changed the Reading of World Chronology?
The fact that the book of Revelation presents a period of 1260 days/years in terms of years of 360 days
and months of 30 days is enough evidence that God intends for us to understand the prophecies in terms
of God’s calendar and chronology. But a religio-political power would trample on God’s Law and His
chronology, as it is written:
“And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High,
and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the
dividing of time” (Daniel 7:25).
From the creation of the world the biblical chronology is counted in an ascendant way; the years increase
in number until our present day. But something happened in the past that seems to have altered God’s
calendar. God’s chronology was altered and forced its reading into confusion. A devilish institution
confused the orderly biblical chronology and began counting years from top to bottom and then from
bottom to top. That alteration caused great harm to the understanding of the biblical prophecies and
biblical chronology. But who was it that changed the reading of the chronology? It was the Roman
Catholic Papacy that effected the change, just as it was prophesied by Daniel (Daniel 7:25).
Just like this institution persecuted the saints in the name of Christ, they also changed times and laws. But,
notice what the Lord Jesus says about them: “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men” (Matt. 15: 9). The Papacy pretending to honor the Lord Jesus, employed the
cunning of an abbot named Dionysius Exiguus to change the chronology. This abbot formulated a chart
that set the basis for the papal calendar to celebrate their pseudo-Christian festival which they called
Easter. Therefore, Dionysius gave the Papacy their Easter table, claiming that it was a genuine way to
practice the festival on its due date.
At the outset of the Middle Ages, when the Papacy came to global dominance, with the help of Dionysius,
they divided the chronology into two eras, namely: B.C. and A.D. This was allegedly to highlight the
birth of Jesus so that the past, present and future history of the world should be centered around His birth.
But there is a problem; the Lord Jesus’ birth did not happen between the years 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. as
Dionysius and the Papacy claimed. Nonetheless, historians have blindly accepted Dionysius’ artificial
division of time and his incorrect dating of the year of Jesus’ birth even though they acknowledge that it
is incorrect.
The alteration of the chronology was a conspiracy against the faith of the Lord Jesus. It was an affront, a
plot against God’s chronology and Bible prophecies. The Papacy’s plan was to establish an uninterrupted
sequence for the celebration of Easter. But it is apparent that the Papacy was not interested in maintaining
the continuity of the true Judeo-Christian feast of the Passover. If the Papacy’s intentions were to honor
the God of the Hebrews, they would not have changed the times, that is, the Judeo-Christian calendar. If
their intentions were to honor Jesus Christ, as they claimed, they would not have meddled with the
calendar at all.
456
Medieval Chronology
It is not that the Christians had a calendar different to that of the Jews; the Judeo-Christian Church
remained faithful to God’s oracles as given to their Hebrew predecessors. But the time came for the
sweeping compromise with paganism, as the union of the Roman Pagan religion and Christianity took
place. The pagans, who retained their own traditions including their festivals and their particular calendar,
enforced their traditions on the apostate Christians who were encouraged to get rid of everything Jewish.
Therefore, historians have written about this miserable compromise as follows: “The Christian calendar
was based, as regards its form and division, on the official (Julian) calendar of the Roman Empire, so
during the earlier centuries Christians employed the eras used by their pagan countrymen.” But of course
historians refer to as “Christians” those who had apostatized from the true Christian faith and allowed
entrance to all forms of pagan celebrations including the one celebrated on the 25th of December.
By accepting the wrong form of calendar, the apostate Medieval Church was also encouraged to accept a
wrong date for the birth of Jesus, which in turn would thwart the understanding of the Old Testament
prophecies regarding the Lord Jesus’ divinity and the Heavenly Sanctuary doctrine. Therefore, this Papal
alteration of biblical chronology clouded people’s understanding of the eschatological prophecies of Jesus’
ministry in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary. “ Dionysius... proposed that the epoch of the
birth of Christ, which he assigned to Dec. 25 A.U.C. 753, should be adopted by Christians. This was
called the Vulgar of Dionysian Era, and gradually gained almost general acceptance.” Hastings continues:
“Tt is well known that Dionysius was incorrect in his calculation, and that the birth of Christ should more
probably be assigned to A.U.C. 749 or B.C. 4.” Both Dionysius and Hastings were incorrect about the
date of Jesus’ birth because the Lord was born in the year 3 B.C. according to the prophecies of Daniel
and the biblical chronology. But the Papacy was more cunning as they taught and continue to teach that
Jesus was born 754 years after the founding of Rome cunningly placing Jesus’ birth in the year 1 A.D.
You would expect that if the Papacy wanted to honor the Lord Jesus, as they claim, they would not have
changed the biblical chronology. Moreover if their intention was to uphold the birth of Jesus, they would
have kept Jerusalem’s sacred history as a major landmark for counting the chronology of Jesus, and not
the founding of a pagan city such as Rome. They conferred all honor to their cradle of paganism, ancient
Rome, when they cunningly introduced the misconception that Jesus was born in the year 754 from the
founding of Rome. Rome was the Papacy’s landmark to begin reading world history, the cradle its anti-
Christ system. Alexandria was also a capital for paganism, and the Papacy’s early playground. Dionysius
was the Papacy’s scapegoat for the change of the biblical chronology. He supplanted God’s chronology
for a set of tables prepared in Alexandria. It is written: “to be sure that his own tables were correct, he
simply extended a set of tables prepared in Alexandria that had circulated in the West in Latin’. Therefore,
the Papacy adopted, to a great extent, the philosophy of the Greeks, whose center was in Alexandria.
What was the Purpose in Changing God’s Chronology?
The Papacy’s changing of the biblical chronology was an act of its antichrist authority against the
authority of the Lord Jesus. The changing of the calendar was merely a religious issue and it had no
relation to the affairs of agriculture. It changed the calendar to procure the reestablishment of the ancient
Roman Empire’s worship on the day of the sun. It sought to revive its pagan liturgy of Sunday worship
and stop the Christians from observing the seventh day Sabbath (Saturday) of the fourth Commandment
457
in the Law of God (Exodus 20:8-11). By changing the calendar the Papacy enforced the reading of history
in a topsy-turvy way. To ensure that Christians were enticed to embrace Sunday, the Papacy needed to
change the calendar, because by doing so it ensured that its festival of Easter would always fall on a
Sunday. At the same time would emulate the feast of the Jewish Passover by holding the Easter festival
around the Passover. The Easter tradition was a tool that the Papacy exploited to demonstrate its alleged
power to trample upon the commandments of God. Easter is in essence its most powerful means to
achieve its ‘dies domini’ or Sunday worship, which is the right arm of its authority. The Papacy asserts:
“8. For the Christian, Sunday is above all an Easter celebration”. But it should certainly clarify that
Sunday worship is not for the Christian who genuinely wishes to obey God rather than the Catholic
system. On the contrary, the saint who wishes to “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus”
(Revelation 14:12) will adhere to the example of Jesus who did not change the Law or the prophets (Matt.
5:17) but kept the seventh day Saturday holy. The Scripture says that the Lord Jesus, “as his custom was,
he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read” (Luke 4:16).
One of the major changes that the Papacy made was in regard to the beginning of the year. Therefore the
Papacy enticed the pseudo-Christian Church to adopt the Roman Empire’s Julian calendar, not only to
please imperial Rome from whom it received its authority and seat, but also to rid the Christian Church of
all vestiges of its Jewish heritage. Consequently, the church was duped into accepting the beginning of the
year not in the Hebrew month Abib (Nisan), but in January.
The Truth About the Passover and Easter
Jesus’ disciples celebrated the feast of the Passover only once in a year, in the month Abib. On the
occasion of Jesus’ crucifixion they asked the Lord: “Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the
Passover?” (Matt. 26:17). Jesus commanded them to prepare the Passover in a man’s private house (Matt.
26:18), so “they made ready the Passover” (Matt. 26:19). Of course, for them the Passover included not
only the roasted lamb and bitter herbs, but also the unleavened bread and unfermented juice of the vine,
emblems that represented the body and blood of Jesus, to be kept in remembrance of Him (1 Corinthians
11:24). The Feast of Unleavened Bread was called the Passover (Luke 22:1). Paul affirmed that for the
Christian Church “...Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7). But this Passover
sacrifice was offered only once, not many times as people have been led to believe. “Christ was once
offered to bear the sins of many” (Hebrews 9:28). Because Christ is our Passover and He was sacrificed
on Friday 14th of Nisan, then those who keep Sunday would probably be better keeping Friday the day of
His crucifixion instead of Sunday the day of His resurrection. But of course the Jewish Passover feast was
not attached to any particular day of the week but to the 14th day of the first month. Therefore the
Passover could be celebrated on any day of the week and not from Sunday to Sunday as the Papacy’s
Easter. As stated, the Passover feast was not attached to any particular day of the week, but the Easter
celebration is intended to foster Sunday worship.
The Christian Church that wished to adhere to the statutes pertaining to the feast days would certainly
have of necessity observed God’s Passover on the day that the 14th of the first month fell upon and not
from Sunday to Sunday as the Papacy established.
458
The Shortening of the Calendar in 1582
In order to advance their so called Sun worship, the Romans created their solar calendar that dated back to
Julius Caesar’s reigning year 45 B.C. It was he who introduced the devilish idea that years should be
reckoned as having 365 days with leap years of 366 every fourth year. But the introduction of this Sun
calendar was another of Satan’s stratagems to counter the Judeo-Christian Feast of the Passover and to
introduce into the Christian Church the pagan celebration of Easter. Remember that the Biblical Passover
Feast was unmovable; that is, it always fell on the 14th of the first month no matter what day of the week
it was. But the Easter celebration, on the other hand is called the wandering Easter because it was
schemed to fall on any given Sunday of their “35-day span where Easter can occur (March 22- April 25,
inclusive): the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox.” But the Roman religion had
a problem with the Judeo-Christian calendar because in order for them to entice the Christian Church into
idolatry, they needed to grasp their first chance to change their festivities and their calendar. The dragon
was wroth against the church and could not stand the fact that Christians were still clinging to the Jewish
calendar. “Our first stop on this tour of the wandering Easter is a quick study of how calendars were used
in the Biblical lands around 30 A.D. Although the Julian or solar-based calendar of the Roman Empire
had been in place since 45 B.C., it did not supplant the lunar calendar that was the chart and compass of
2,000 years of Jewish history.” After the Roman Emperor Constantine enforced Sunday as the only day of
worship in 321 A.D. another religious convention, the council of Nicea, took place. Constantine had
already displaced the sacredness of the seventh day Sabbath (Saturday) and granted all honor to the first
day of the week, Sunday. But Rome still needed to crown its idolatrous achievement with a church canon
to eradicate forever the sanctity of the true day of the Lord. Therefore, “one unanimously accepted canon
guaranteed that Easter would never fall on the beginning of the Jewish Passover.” Such a drastic change,
Brown states, was “perhaps reflecting Christian animosity towards the Jewish people for their perceived
role in Jesus’ death.” But of course it was not the animosity of the true Christian Church against the Jews.
The early Christians harbored no hatred against their Jewish brothers, nor any quarrel against the
Commandments of God. But the Papacy, which had received its power and authority from the dragon,
had such hatred against the Christian Church and tried to alienate Christianity from its Jewish heritage of
faith. Moreover, the battle was not only against the Commandments of God, but against the Lord Jesus
and His authority. The sole purpose for a reformed calendar was purely ecclesiastical; it was due to the
Papacy’s urgency to uphold their commitment to celebrate their Easter from Sunday to Sunday. Therefore,
Pope Gregory, aided by his team of idolatrous astronomers, took drastic measures by a papal Bull that
imposed the shortening of the calendar by 10 numerical days. The Pope ordered in his Bull that the 4th of
October be followed by the 15th of October 1582.
Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23
24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30
31
459
Notice that the weekly cycle was not affected by this shortening of days. The day of the Lord, the Sabbath,
remained the seventh day of the week. The number of the Sabbath in the calendar was changed but the
day of Lord remained unmovable, its holy time was not modified.
460
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGMENT: 1844 AND BEYOND
“God's people in these last days are not to choose darkness rather than light. They are to look for light, to
expect light. ... The light will continue to shine in brighter and still brighter rays, and reveal more and
more distinctly the truth as it is in Jesus, that human hearts and human characters may be improved, and
moral darkness--which Satan is working to bring over the people of God--may be dispelled. ... As we
near the close of time there will be needed a deeper and clearer discernment, a more firm knowledge of
the Word of God, a living experience, and the holiness of heart and life which we must have to serve Him.’
Ellen White, That I May Know Him, P. 347, 1964.
Chart of the World Chronology until Judgment Time
God Created - Adam Genesis 1:26-31 1
ADAM 130 years Seth Genesis 5:3 130
old
SETH 105 years Enos Genesis 5:6 235
old
ENOS 90 years old | Cainan Genesis 5:9 325
CAINAN 70 years old | Mahalaleel Genesis 5:12 395
MAHALALEEL _| 65 years old | Jared Genesis 5:15 460
JARED 162 years Enoch Genesis 5:18 622
old
ENOCH 65 years old | Methuselah Genesis 5:21 687
METHUSELAH | 187 years Lamech Genesis 5:25 874
old
LAMECH 182 years Noah Genesis 5:28 1056
old
NOAH 500 years Shem Genesis 5:32 1556
old
SHEM 100 years Arphaxad Genesis 11:9,10 1656
old YEAR OF THE
FLOOD
ARPHAXAD 35 years old | Salah Genesis 11:12 1691
461
SALAH 30 years old | Eber Genesis 11:14 1721
EBER 34 years old | Peleg Genesis 11:16 1755
PELEG 30 years old | Reu Genesis 11:18 1785
REU 32 years old | Serug Genesis 11:20 1817
SERUG 30 years old | Nahor Genesis 11:22 1847
NAHOR 29 years old | Terah Genesis 11:24 1876
TERAH 70 years old | Abram Genesis 11:26 1946
ABRAHAM 100 years Isaac Genesis 21:5 2046
old
ISAAC 60 years old | Jacob Genesis 25:26 2106
JACOB 130 years TO EGYPT Genesis 47:9 2236
old
Israel's Slavery 430 years THE EXODUS | Exodus 12:40-41 2666
ISRAEL 40 years Wilderness Acts 13:18 2706
JUDGES 450 years Joshua to Acts 13:20 3156
Samuel
JUDGE Saul anointed 1 Sam 25:1 3156
SAMUEL & king in year 1 Sam 28:3.7
KING SAUL 3116 A.M.
1 Sam 31:4
DAVID 40 years Crowned at 30 | 2 Sam 5:5 3196
years of age in
year 3156
SOLOMON AO years Crowned in 1 Kings 11:42 3236
year 3196 A.M.
REHOBOAM 17 years Crowned at 41 1 Kings 14:21 3253
years of age in
year 3236 A.M.
ABIJAM (Abijah) | 3 years Crowned in 1 Kings 15:2 3256
year 3253 A.M.
ASA 41 years Crowned in 1 Kings 15:9,10 3297
year 3256 A.M.
JEHOSHAPHAT | 25 years Crowned at 35 1 Kings 22:41,42 3322
years of age in
year 3297 A.M.
JEHORAM 8 years Crowned at 32 | 2 Kings 8:17 3330
years of age in
year 3322 A.M.
462
AHAZIAH 1 year Crowned at 42 | 2 Kings 8:24,26 3331
years of age in
year 3330 A.M.
ATHALIA 6 years Crowned in 2 Chronicles 22:12 3337
(Queen) year 3331
JEHOASH 40 years Crowned at 7 2 Kings 12:1 3377
(Joash) years of age in
year 3337 A.M.
AMAZIAH 29 years Crowned at 25 | 2 Kings 14:1-2 3406
years of age in
year 3377 A.M.
UZZIAH 52 years Crowned at 16 | 2 Chronicles 26:3 3458
(Azariah) years of age in
year 3406
JOTHAM 16 years Crowned at 25 | 2 Kings 15:32-33 3474
years of age in
year 3458 A.M.
AHAZ 16 years Crowned at 20 | 2 Kings 16:1-2 3490
years of age in
year 3474 A.M.
HEZEKIAH 29 years Crowned at 25 | 2 Kings 18:2 3519
years of age in
year 3490 A.M.
MANASSEH 55 years Crowned at12 | 2 Kings 21:1 3574
years of age in
year 3519
AMON 2 years Crowned at 22 | 2 Kings 21:19 3576
years of age in
year 3574 A.M.
JOSIAH 31 years Crowned at 8 2 Kings 22:1 3607
years of age in
year 3576
JEHOAHAZ 3 months Crowned at 23 | 2 Kings 23:31 3607
years of age in
year 3607
JEHOIAKIM 4TH Year Ist Jeremiah 25:1 3612
BABYLONIAN
INCURSION
JEHOIAKIM 11 years 2nd 2 Kings 23:36 3618
Crowned in 3607 BABYLONIAN
463
INCURSION 2 Chronicles 36:5
JEHOIACHIN 3 months Crowned at 8 2 Chronicles 36:9 3619
years of age in
year 3619
ZEDEKIAH 11 years Crowned at 21 | 2 Kings 24:17-18 3630
(Mattaniah) years of age in
3619 A.M.
Taken captive
in 3630 A.M.
Nebuchadnezzar 19th year 3rd Jeremiah 52:12 3630
TEMPLE BABYLONIAN
BURNT INCURSION
Decree to Restore | 70 years End of 70 Year | Ezra 1:1 3700
i Desoeson 2 Chronicles 36:21-22
Jerusalem
TEMPLE 49 years Ezra 6:15 3749
REBUILT
JESUS' BIRTH MESSIAH 4153 = 3 B.C.
BAPTISM OF 483 (69x7) | ANOINTED Daniel 9:25 4183 = 27 A.D.
JESUS
THE LORD'S 3.5 years LAMB OF Daniel 9:26-27 4187 = 31 A.D.
CRUCIFIXION GOD
SACRIFICED
GOD'S GRACE 490 years 70x7 Daniel 9:24 4190 = 34 A.D.
FOR THE JEWS
TEMPLE By the Romans 4226 = 70 A.D.
DESTROYED
JUDGMENT IN THE TIME OF | Daniel 8:14 6000 = 1844 A.D.
THE THE END
HEAVENLY
SANCTUARY
THE PRESENT 6179 = 2023 A.D.
God’s Heavenly Sanctuary Judgment
The prophecy of Daniel 8:14 about the 2300 years reached to the time of the end (Daniel 8: 17). It began
in Daniel’s time and it was fulfilled in the chronological year 6000 (1844 A.D.). This prophecy has a
464
symbolic language reminiscent of the Day of Atonement and therefore of judgment. Notice: “And he said
unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” Daniel 8:14.
When the Hebrews celebrated the Day of Atonement, God commanded them to afflict their souls
(Leviticus 16:31). This was a day of judgment, therefore the Israelites needed to show humility and
reverence. Moreover, it was a day of cleansing or remission of sins from the repentant. Notice: “For on
that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your
sins before the LORD” (Leviticus 16:30).
Only the anointed high priest could make the atonement (Leviticus 16:32). Moreover, God commanded
the high priest to make atonement not just for the sinner but also for the holy sanctuary, for the tabernacle
of the congregation, for the altar, for the priests and for the people (Leviticus 16:33).
The book of Daniel, whose author’s name means ‘God is my judge’, is about God’s judgment. The God
of Heaven (Daniel 2:19) is the only Judge Who can change the times (Daniel 2:21), He removes kings
and sets up kings (Daniel 2:21). Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon praised God as King of Heaven and
acknowledged that His ways are judgment (Daniel 4:37).
The prophecy of Daniel 8:14 is the climax of God’s judgment. It is a judgment that would sit after the
1260 years of the Papacy’s dominion (Daniel 7:25). That is the reason why Daniel was told:
“.,.Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision” (Daniel 8:17). Therefore, to
Daniel it was reiterated that all these things would be finished after the period of 1260 years for it says
that “it shall be for a time, times and an half...” (Daniel 12:7). And once again to Daniel it is told: “...Go
thy way Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end” (Daniel 14:9).
Notice how the Word of God explains that the Judgment would begin after the 1260 years of Papal
supremacy:
“And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High,
and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the
dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to
destroy it unto the end” (Daniel 7:25-26).
God’s judgment in the Heavenly Sanctuary was to be preceded by the world history of successive world
empires leading to the time of the end. The Word of God represents these empires as beasts. “These great
beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth” (Daniel 7:17). Therefore, in
prophecy, Babylon is represented as a lion (Daniel 7:4); Medo-Persia, as a bear (Daniel 7:5); Greece, as a
leopard (Daniel 7:6); Rome, the fourth beast dreadful and terrible (Daniel 7:7); and the Papacy, as the
little horn (Daniel 7:8) with “a mouth speaking great things” (Daniel 7:8).
When the chronology of the world would reach the time of the end, God would take the dominion from
all these world powers. Daniel’s vision further corroborates this: “I beheld till the thrones were cast down,
and the Ancient of days did sit...” (Daniel 7:9) “...the judgment was set and the books were open.”
(Daniel 7:10). Then, “...one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient
of days...” (Daniel 7:13). About this judgment the Son of man said: “For the Father judgeth no man, but
hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (John 5:22).
465
Like chapter 7, chapter 8 of Daniel is a recapitulation of the Heavenly Sanctuary Judgment, which is
preceded by the world empires and by the Papacy. Daniel received another vision of a ram with two horns
(Daniel 8:3 the two kings of Media and Persia Daniel 8: 20) and a male goat with a notable horn
(Daniel8:5, the king of Greece Daniel 8:21). The goat smote the ram, and broke his two horns (Daniel
8:7). When the goat was very strong, the great horn was broken; and it came for notable ones (Daniel 8:8).
“And out of one of them came forth a little horn” (Daniel 8:9).
The Papacy represented by the little horn of Daniel 8:9 is the beast of Revelation 13:5 who had “‘a mouth
speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months”
(Revelation 13:5). Notice how the little horn “magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by
him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down” (Daniel 8:11). This
is further explained in Revelation: “And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his
name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven” (Revelation 13:6).
Prior to the beginning of Judgment in the Most Holy Place in Heaven, the Papacy obliterated from the
minds of people the truth, “it cast down the truth to the ground” (Daniel 8:12). The Papacy also erased the
Sanctuary doctrine from people’s minds, “the place of the sanctuary was cast down” (Daniel 8: 11).
Under these circumstances of the Papacy’s eradication of God’s Sanctuary doctrine, a saint exclaimed:
“...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?” (Daniel 8:13). Then the answer was given:
“And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”
(Daniel 8:14).
Once again the Word of God reiterates that “...the vision of the evening and the morning which was told
is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days” (Daniel 8:26). But this little horn
“shall destroy the mighty and the holy people” (Daniel 8:24). Moreover, the angel said to Daniel “...I will
make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be
(Daniel 8:19).
Daniel’s Vision Reaches Time of the End in Year 6000 A.M. (1844 A.D.)
The vision of Daniel 8:14 about the 2300 years reached the chronological year 6000 (1844 A.D.). But to
confirm that date you need to know when the vision would begin to be counted. Therefore, the angel told
Daniel that the starting date was “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem...” (Daniel 9:25); that is, the chronological year 3700 when the Persian King Cyrus issued that
decree.
God ordained that this knowledge be written in a symbolic way so that God’s plan might not be hindered.
Not even Satan could decipher the meaning of this chiastic Bible verse.
Daniel 9:25 is a chiasm because the verse is written in the form that God’s people will be able to match
the whole truth, matching fact with fact as in a test. The prophet crosses two tracks in the form of a letter
x. So that in one end you have the rebuilding of Jerusalem, then, in the middle you have the coming of the
Messiah and on the other end you have the rebuilding of Jerusalem with its street and wall. Now 7 weeks
466
and 62 weeks make up a total of 69 weeks until the coming of the Messiah. The first seven weeks were to
build and restore Jerusalem which makes up a total of 49 years. By adding 7+62 = 69 weeks, then we
multiply 69 x 7 = 483 days, this is equivalent to 483 years.
The Church’s Great Disappointment in the Year 6000 A.M.
John the Revelator was shown the events to take place at the time of the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Daniel 8:14. He understood that God’s remnant people would undergo a heartfelt disappointment; a sweet
bitter experience (Revelation 10:10). However, John was commanded to choose his words carefully so as
not to reveal every detail of the vision, which to Daniel was sealed but to John it was “a little book open”
(Revelation 10:2). John wrote:
“And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from
heaven saying unto me, seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not”
Revelation 10:4.
The message was given in a form that only the end-time people of God would be able to decipher but they
would experience a bitter disappointment first. The vision was about the Heavenly Sanctuary and the
ministration of the Lord Jesus. It is a vision of God’s throne: “...a rainbow was upon his head, and his
face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire” (Revelation 10:1). Moreover, it was God Who
“cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth” (Revelation 10:3). Therefore, it was God Who would
guide His people through their bitter Disappointment of 1844. God also commanded His remnant people
to “prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings” (Revelation 10:11) With
renewed strength they take the message of the pre-advent judgment to the whole world. In that context,
notice what the prophet Amos wrote:
“Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. The lion
hath roared, who will not fear? The Lord GOD hath spoken, who can but prophesy?” (Amos 3: 7-8).
The message of the seven thunders was given in an encrypted form; in the form of an ellipsis that only
God’s children would be able to understand; that is, the Revelator omitted some words from the message.
It was written like an acronym where the reader must fill in the spaces. Notice that the angel “set his right
foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth” (Revelation 10:2). The meaning of this scenario in Rev.
10:2 is that the message would have a worldwide coverage. The fact that the angel, figuratively spoken of
in this chapter, “swear by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven... and the earth... and the
sea” (Revelation 10:6) indicates that it is God Himself speaking, as God only can swear by Himself. And
what He swore is “that there should be time no longer” (Revelation 10:6). Here the Lord Jesus is
explaining that after the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, the Christian Church should not
expect another time prophecy. He adds:
“But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God
should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets” (Revelation 10:7).
Habakkuk was told to “Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it”
(Habakkuk 2:2). The message was clear, but God’s people failed to understand it. Habakkuk wrote:
467
“For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait
for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry” Habakkuk 2:3.
The vision did not lie, but the church did not understand it and this caused them bitter disappointment.
John was commanded to “Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel” (Revelation
10:8). John said to the angel: “Give me the little book” (Revelation 10:9), and the angel said to John:
“Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey”
(Revelation 10:9).
The little book was the vision of Daniel 8:14 that was sweet in the mouths of God’s people proclaiming
the coming of the Lord Jesus in 1844 A.D. Jeremiah wrote in another context: “Thy words were found,
and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy
name, O LORD God of hosts” (Jeremiah 15:16).
John continued to elaborate on the vision: “And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up;
and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter” (Revelation
10:10). Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Paul wrote:
“Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of
patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and
he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draws
back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him” Hebrews 10:35-38.
The Word of God made it clear that at the time of the end when the mystery of God should be finished,
and when the time prophecy of 2300 years should be fulfilled, God’s people would suffer a bitter
disappointment. But what was it about? You ask. Well the vision was fulfilled right when the
chronological clock arrived at the year 6000. A glorious event took place in the Heavenly Sanctuary, the
Judgment in Heaven began. But the people overlooked what the Scriptures had to say about the
fulfillment of this prophecy. In that year, Jesus did not return to earth as it was hoped but He moved from
the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary. The Holy Spirit gave testimony of this
in Hebrews 9:7-8, as well as in Hebrews 10:
“Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living
way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh” (Hebrews 10:19-20).
But God’s people had previously misunderstood what the vision of Daniel 8:14 really meant. What
happened is that the Adventist believers proclaimed the Second Advent of Jesus to be fulfilled in 1843-
1844 A.D. For them that proclamation was sweet in their mouths, because they felt certain that our Lord
would return then. But they were bitterly disappointed when the Lord did not return to earth on the date
when the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 was fulfilled. The prophecy of 2300 years was fulfilled in 1844 A.D.
The Adventist believers had the correct date, but they had misunderstood the event taking place in the
Heavenly Sanctuary.
The Adventist believers went through a similar disappointment to that which the disciples of the Lord
Jesus experienced. We are sometimes disappointed because we let ourselves to be carried away by our
emotions and not by sound reasoning. We expect things to happen the way we think they should and not
as it is written in the Word of God. To His disciples the Lord had said beforehand:
468
“Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man
shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully
entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise
again” (Luke 18: 31-33).
The prophets had written extensively about the sacrifice of our Redeemer, but of the disciples it is written
that “they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the
things which were spoken” (Luke 18:34). When the two disappointed travelers heading to Emmaus were
joined on their way by our risen Savior, they intended to teach the Lord about the events that had
happened in Jerusalem concerning the Lord’s crucifixion. They expressed their grief as follows: “the
chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him” (Luke
24:20). Then they added: “But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel...”
(Luke 24:21). These men and the other disciples had a misconception about the Messiah because they had
not understood the prophecies.
Likewise, the Adventist believers had tasted a palatable message and they proclaimed the sweet promise
of Jesus’ glorious return. It was sweet at first, but it turned bitter when they realized that that which they
had eaten was not what they expected. Yet the Lord did not abandon them in disappointment, He
encouraged them to search the Scriptures and resume their mission:
“And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and
kings” (Revelation 10:11).
Notice that they must preach again proclaiming the glorious intercession of our Lord Jesus Who
intercedes for us in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary. This is the “everlasting gospel to
preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people”
(Revelation 14:6). It proclaims the truth that “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto
them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Hebrews 9:28). Our
proclamation must be that judgment has begun in the Most Holy, where our Lord Jesus, since 1844 A.D.
intercedes for us in the final phase of the atonement that is taking place in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Such
prophesying or preaching indicates a decisive and active allegiance to our King of kings. Therefore, we
must continue to prophesy again by preaching the everlasting gospel, as it is written:
“Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and
worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters” (Revelation 14:7).
The Parable of the Ten Virgins and the Talents
The 1844 disappointment was also prefigured in the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:1-13. The
ten virgins represent the Advent people who waited for the coming of the Lord Jesus. When the midnight
cry (Matthew 25:6) was made only five of them remained steadfast to God’s Word, as they professed the
righteousness by faith of Romans 1:17.
469
The parable of the talents in Matthew 25: 14-30 complements the parable of the Ten Virgins. The Lord
Jesus is represented in both parables as delaying His coming. In Matthew 25:5 “the bridegroom tarried”
while in Matthew 25:19 “After a long time the Lord of those servants cometh.” The 5 wise virgins share
the character of the faithful servant who received 5 talents, while the 5 foolish virgins have the character
of the wicked and slothful servant (Matthew 25:25-26). Thus, God’s people of the time of the end are
represented in both parables.
The 5 foolish virgins were negligent, they had lamps but they did not take oil with them (Matthew 25:3),
while the last servant received one talent but he chose to dig in the earth and bury it (Matthew 25:18).
About the last servant the Lord said: “For unto everyone that hath shall it be given, and he shall have
abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath” (Matthew 25: 29).
Likewise the advent people who expected the fulfillment of prophecy in 1844, but had not made a
profession of righteousness by faith, rejected the message of the coming of the Lord. They buried their
talent because they were unprofitable servants and were cast into outer darkness (Matthew 25:30).
However, the Advent people who waited for the coming of the Lord Jesus in 1844, and whose faith did
not waiver, their faith was increased as they searched the Scriptures. These wise virgins kept constant in
prayer and the Lord Jesus gave them five magnifying talents which are the pillars of the Seventh-day
Adventist fundamental faith. Namely: The nature of Christ, the sanctuary service, the spirit of prophecy,
the three angels’ messages, and the state of the dead.
The Earth is Not the Sanctuary of Daniel 8:14
The prophet wrote: “And he said unto me, unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed” (Daniel 8:14).
If a Jew were asked this question: What happened on the Day of Atonement? The correct answer would
be: On that day the sanctuary was cleansed. But, how was it cleansed? Well, it was cleansed by offering
the blood of the sacrifice. Now, put Daniel 8:14 into context; the vision is a time prophecy, but it has to
do with language of the Day of Atonement, the cleansing of the sanctuary. So the question then arises,
what sanctuary is Daniel prophesying about?
Daniel 8:14 cannot be referring to the cleansing of the Jewish temple because it was destroyed by the
Romans in the year 70 A.D. Moreover, the vision is for the time of the end (Daniel 8:17). It cannot be the
earth because this is purely atonement language, and atonement only happened around the sanctuary. Let
the Word of God give the explanation. The Scriptures say:
“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission”
(Hebrews 9:22).
The atonement always required a sacrifice. Where there is no sacrifice, there is no cleansing and no
remission of sins. Therefore, the vision of Daniel 8:14 refers to the Heavenly Sanctuary and specifically
to its Most Holy Place. Let the Holy Scriptures continue the explanation:
“Tt was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the
heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these” (Hebrews 9:23).
470
I beg your pardon, Lord, please refresh my mind... when would be the fulfillment of the vision?
“Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision” (Daniel 8:17). Praise the Lord!
The book of Hebrews clarifies it even further: “...now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself’ (Hebrews 9:26).
Remember that on the Day of Atonement, the atonement for the sanctuary was not made until the high
priest had come out of the sanctuary’s Most Holy Place (Leviticus 16:20). So the final phase of the
atonement is taking place in Heaven. But soon the atonement will be forever finished, as the Holy
Scriptures confirm: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him
shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Hebrews 9:28).
Explaining the Disappointment
The bitter disappointment for the faithful Adventist believers of all denominations took place in the
United States of America. William Miller, a lay preacher of the Baptist Church, moved by the Holy Spirit,
began to preach about the fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel 8:14, which, he mistook to mean the
Second Coming of Jesus in 1844 A.D. Although Miller was correct about the date of the vision’s
fulfillment, he had misunderstood the whole event that was taking place. “In explaining Daniel 8:14,
"Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,” "Miller, as has been
stated, adopted the generally received view that the earth is the sanctuary, and he believed that the
cleansing of the sanctuary represented the purification of the earth by fire at the coming of the Lord.
When, therefore, he found that the close of the 2300 days was definitely foretold, he concluded that this
revealed the time of the Second Advent. His error resulted from accepting the popular view as to what
constitutes the sanctuary.”
The young Methodist teenager Ellen G. White also attended Miller’s Adventist prophecy lectures in 1842
A.D. She later received from God the ministry of prophecy and became one of the pioneers of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church. Some years later she wrote:
“What emotions filled my heart as I stood before the people of my native city. It was here that I received
my first impressions in regard to the speedy, personal coming of our Lord. Here my father's family,
including myself, were excluded from the Methodist Church for cherishing this blessed hope. I knew
there were none in the congregation who had been active workers in the message of the first and second
angels. And yet this city was favored with special light and privileges in the great movement of 1842-4. A
large company accepted the faith, and rejoiced in the glad tidings that Jesus was soon coming. Many more
would have taken their position with the waiting, watching ones, had not the ministers warned them
against attending the Adventist meetings, telling them that it was as great a sin to listen to these doctrines
as to attend a theater.”
Sister Ellen White was also one of those who experienced the bitter disappointment of 1844 A.D. She was
also ridiculed by her former brothers and sisters of the Methodist denomination. But like the great men
and women of faith, she persisted in the faith of the Lord. She explained the necessity of that bitter trial as
follows:
471
“ .. Miller and his associates fulfilled prophecy, and gave a message which inspiration had foretold
should be given to the world, but which they could not have given had they fully understood the
prophecies pointing out their disappointment, and presenting another message to be preached to all
nations before the Lord should come. The first and second angels' messages were given at the right time,
and accomplished the work which God designed to accomplish by them.”
The Midnight Cry Vision
After proclaiming the midnight cry message in 1844 A.D., and having experienced the bitter
disappointment that followed, Ellen White received her first vision to encourage the faithful believers.
Remember that it was the Lord Jesus who guided them through the bitter experience of the little book
(Revelation 10: 1-6). Read part of Ellen’s first vision:
“While I was praying at the family altar, the Holy Ghost fell upon me, and I seemed to be rising higher
and higher, far above the dark world. I turned to look for the Advent people in the world, but could not
find them, when a voice said to me, "Look again, and look a little higher." At this I raised my eyes, and
saw a Straight and narrow path, cast up high above the world. On this path the Advent people were
traveling to the city, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them
at the beginning of the path, which an angel told me was the midnight cry. This light shone all along the
path and gave light for their feet so that they might not stumble. If they kept their eyes fixed on Jesus,
who was just before them, leading them to the city, they were safe. But soon some grew weary, and said
the city was a great way off, and they expected to have entered it before. Then Jesus would encourage
them by raising His glorious right arm, and from His arm came a light which waved over the Advent band,
and they shouted, "Alleluia!" Others rashly denied the light behind them and said that it was not God that
had led them out so far. The light behind them went out, leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they
stumbled and lost sight of the mark and of Jesus, and fell off the path down into the dark and wicked
world below...”
As the Lord Jesus mediates for us in the Heavenly Sanctuary we are encouraged to remain faithful to
God’s guidance. Four and a half years after the Lord Jesus began His intercessory ministry in the Most
Holy Place, Ellen White explained how the Holy Spirit reaffirmed them in this doctrine. She wrote:
“Sabbath, March 24, 1849, we had a sweet and very interesting meeting with the brethren at Topsham,
Maine. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon us, and I was taken off in the Spirit to the city of the living
God. Then I was shown that the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ relating to the
shut door could not be separated, and that the time for the commandments of God to shine out with all
their importance, and for God's people to be tried on the Sabbath truth, was when the door was opened in
the Most Holy Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary, where the ark is, in which are contained the ten
commandments. This door was not opened until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the Holy Place of
the sanctuary in 1844. Then Jesus rose up and shut the door of the Holy Place, and opened the door into
the most holy, and passed within the second veil, where He now stands by the ark, and where the faith of
Israel now reaches”
We are commanded to keep the pillars of our faith. Our firm foundation will be preserved until the end of
time. Please continue reading Ellen G. White’s instruction:
472
“T am instructed to say to those who endeavor to tear down the foundation that has made us Seventh-day
Adventists: We are God's commandment keeping people. For the past fifty years every phase of heresy
has been brought to bear upon us, to becloud our minds regarding the teaching of the Word--especially
concerning the ministration of Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary...But the waymarks which have made us
what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified through His word and
the testimonies of His Spirit. He calls upon us to hold firmly with the grip of faith, to the fundamental
principles that are based upon unquestionable authority”
In recent years there have been many false teachers who have prevaricated from the Christian faith,
denying the roles of our Lord Jesus in the Heavenly Sanctuary. About them the following words are
written:
“The enemies of the present truth have been trying to open the door of the Holy Place, that Jesus has shut,
and to close the door of the Most Holy Place, which He opened in 1844, where the ark is, containing the
two tables of stone on which are written the Ten Commandments by the finger of Jehovah.”
Satan is trying to destroy the pillars of our faith and keep people’s minds in ignorance regarding the
Biblical foundations. But as he is unable to deceive the elect of God he becomes infuriated and wages a
physical war against them. Revelation 12:17 says that he “went to make war with the remnant of her seed,
which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ”.
The following quote is part of a vision that Ellen White had, regarding the cunning schemes of Satan, she
wrote:
“As the people of God approach the perils of the last days, Satan holds earnest consultation with his
angels as to the most successful plan of overthrowing their faith. Says the great deceiver... "We must
watch those who are calling the attention of the people to the Sabbath of Jehovah; they will lead many to
see the claims of the law of God; and the same light which reveals the true Sabbath, reveals also the
ministration of Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary, and shows that the last work for man's salvation is now
going forward. Hold the minds of the people in darkness till that work is ended, and we shall secure the
world and the church also...”
A Mistake in the Charts
The majority of the Adventist believers gave up on prophecy altogether and went back to their former
denominations. For a very small minority, however, their faith did not waver. This small remnant
persisted in their resolute belief that the Lord Jesus was coming soon after the end of the 2300 years of
Daniel 8:14. They did not give up hope because the Holy Spirit had given them so much light in regards
to the Spirit of Prophecy. They gained greater understanding of the mysteries of God. Yet, it was under
God’s providence that they should undergo a sweet/bitter spiritual experience, so that it should also be
fulfilled that the “just shall live by faith” (Hebrews 10:38). They experienced a purification of their hearts,
as gold refined in the fire. Their disappointment produced a refinement of their perfect love for our
Redeemer. Bear in mind that God reveals His secrets when it is pertinent for us to understand these
aspects of His providential plan of salvation. As the Scriptures inform us: “The secret things belong unto
the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that
473
we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29). The point, once again, is that God wishes to
develop our faith, and this faith is translated into a genuine love for God which leads His people to obey
His Commandments. Therefore, God’s wisdom directed their understanding of the Scriptures as God
deemed it suitable. Ellen G. White explains:
“’,. have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered;
that the figures were as He wanted them; that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures,
so that none could see it, until His hand was removed.”
The mistake in the figures was a kind reminder from heaven that God’s children should live by faith
under all circumstances. Bear in mind that those Adventists had not been through their bitterest
disappointment yet. But after that earlier disappointment, they regained their zeal to search the Scriptures:
“Again they were led to their Bibles to search the prophetic periods. The hand of the Lord was removed
from the figures, and the mistake was explained. They saw that the prophetic periods reached to 1844, and
that the same evidence which they had presented to show that the prophetic periods closed in 1843,
proved that they would terminate in 1844. Light from the Word of God shone upon their position, and
they discovered a tarrying time...”
The Significance of the Date 456 B.C.
It has been an amazing experience to discover that the chronological year 6000 is the equivalent to the
year 1844 A.D. We have learned that in that year, the Judgment began in the Heavenly Sanctuary. The
Lord Jesus began what is called the Investigative Judgment in the Most Holy Place. It has been also
exciting to learn that in the beginning of the year 456 B.C., immediately after the end of the descending
year 457 B.C., the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 pertaining to the prophetic span of 2300 years began its count.
The timing was perfect; the prophecy was fulfilled in 1844 A.D. But perhaps the reader wishes to know
what exactly happened with the computation because it leads us to the exact date of the prophecy’s
fulfillment with its starting year 456 B.C. rather than 457 B.C. Ellen G. White elucidates the facts:
“Tt was not at first perceived that if the decree did not go forth at the beginning of the year 457 B.C., the
2300 years would not be completed at the close of 1843. But it was ascertained that the decree was given
near the close of the year 457 B.C., and therefore the prophetic period must reach to the fall of the year
1844.”
Remember that every Passover occurred in the beginning of every year, in the first month on the 14th day
of the month. Many great events in Bible prophecy happened at the beginning of the year. The
deliverance of the people of Israel from Egypt happened at the beginning of the year; thus, at the Exodus
when the Lord commanded Moses to write down that date, it was the beginning of the year (Exodus 12:2).
The Lord Jesus was crucified in the beginning of the year at the time of the Passover. Thus it is written:
“Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out
of this world unto the Father...” (John 13:1).
The author was ten years of age when he heard a sermon titled: “The Midnight Cry and the Great
Disappointment of 1844.” In the sermon it was explained that the Adventist disappointment was due to an
474
error in the counting of the calendar years that the Advent movement had failed to count the year zero in
the current Gregorian calendar. The preacher stated that because the year zero was missing from the
calendar, it was wrongly understood that the year 1843 A.D. would be the date of the prophecy’s
fulfillment, and the misunderstanding could be corrected by adding the year zero. The preacher also
explained that this reasoning helped the Adventist believers to arrive at the correct date of 1844.
Remember that Satan had confused the chronology by introducing a system of arithmetical regression and
progression to count years from top to bottom and then from bottom to top as in the following diagram:
e554 es
-4 -3 -2 -1 OH +2 43 +4
But if you wish to understand the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 by relying solely on the Papacy’s chronology
you will not be able to correctly understand why 1844 A. D. is the correct date for its fulfillment.
Consequently, if you follow the arithmetical progression of counting decrescendo numerical years,
reaching year zero, and then counting years in a crescendo numerical way, you will find that the
calculation for the prophetic dates would oscillate and increase by one or two years. For instance,
supposing that the year 457 B.C. was the correct date for counting the Messianic prophecy of Daniel
9:24-27 and you add the years up to 34 A.D. it will give you a period of 491 years and if on top of that
you add the supposed year zero you get a total number of 492 years. Thus every prophetic date would
increase by one if not by two years. For instance: -457+490 = 33
The biblical chronology and its wonderful prophecies confirm the fact that the chronological year 3700
(456 B.C.) is the actual year when the ‘going forth’ of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem
was decreed. The year 456 B.C. was used to count the years until the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary
in the chronological year 6000 (1844 A.D.).
A 6179 Year Old Conspiracy Against God
The war that happened in Heaven was waged on the issue of worship. It was a war between good and evil,
between the Creator Jesus Christ, in Whom “God hath given to us eternal life” (1 John 5:11), and Satan
who “was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). It was a war between God Who is light, in Whom
there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5) and “the rulers of the darkness of this world...” (Ephesians 6:12).
This conflict has continued on this earth for over six thousand years and we are yet to undergo our worst
battle as the end of the world approaches. The final conflict will also revolve around the issue of worship:
either you worship God and keep His Commandments or you worship Satan and follow the
commandments of men.
When Cain murdered his brother Abel, he did it because of his hatred against the righteous Abel of whom
God accepted worship (Genesis 4:5, 6). The construction of the tower of Babel was due to a confederacy
of the earth in rebellion against God. It was an issue of worship; they wanted a tower “whose top may
reach unto heaven” (Genesis 11:4). The split in the kingdom of Israel was also an issue of power, control
and worship to subjugate the ten tribes led by Jeroboam. This division led to the establishment of two
altars to Baal (1 Kings 12:28). The Lord Jesus was crucified because of the issue of worship. The earth
and the universe have witnessed a horrendous hatred and crimes against the people of God throughout the
475
history of this world. It is shocking to know that those atrocities were carried out under the name of
worship. To the religious leaders of Jerusalem the Lord Jesus said:
“Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill
and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel
unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Matt.
23:34-35).
The following righteous people hoped for God’s promise of redemption. They “all died in faith... and
confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Hebrews 11:13): Abel (Hebrews 11:4),
Noah (Hebrews 11:7), Abraham (Hebrews 11:8), Sara (Hebrews 11:11), Isaac (Hebrews 11:20), Jacob
(Hebrews 11:21), Moses (Hebrews 11:23), Rahab (Hebrews 11:31), Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David,
Samuel and the prophets (Hebrews 11:32). Moreover, others were tortured (Hebrews 11:35), stoned, sawn
in half, slain with the sword, dressed in sheepskins and tormented (Hebrews 11:37). And in the Christian
Era people who believed that the righteous must live by faith such as the great Reformer Martin Luther,
Jerome, John Huss, William Tyndale, and the more than one hundred million people who were tortured
and killed for their faith during the 1260 year reign of spiritual darkness. More could be said every
unknown servant of the Lord who sleeps in the Lord until judgment day. The blood of the martyrs “who
were slain for the word of God” (Revelation 6:9) metaphorically cries with a loud voice: “How long, O
Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?”
(Revelation 6:10). The Almighty God is soon to fulfill His promise written a long time ago:
“O thou enemy, destructions are come to a perpetual end: and thou hast destroyed cities; their memorial is
perished with them. But the LORD shall endure forever: he hath prepared his throne for judgment. And
he shall judge the world in righteousness; he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness. The
LORD also will be a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble” (Psalms 9: 6-9).
Reader, if you follow the religion of Judaism, or Christianity, or Islamism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism or
any other religion, remember that Almighty God loves you, as it is written in God’s Word:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
But do not find yourself fighting against God the Creator. Too much innocent blood has been shed
because of religious hatred against the Commandments of God. Remember, that the day God has reserved
for us to worship Him is the seventh day of the week: Saturday. This is the Sabbath that our Creator God
blessed and sanctified (Genesis 2:2). It is not the sixth day of the week, Friday, nor the first day of the
week, Sunday. Remember Noah, Daniel and Job; they all kept the seventh day Sabbath holy.
The day is coming when God’s final judgment upon the wickedness of the world will be declared. God
has not forgotten the earth. He will end the misery of this world
The chronology of the mysteries of God is coming to an end. But it will not be over without a final
conflict between good and evil. The Scriptures affirm that the final conflict will test the character of each
individual in the whole world. Therefore: “Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it,
they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD” (Ezekiel 14:14).
476
Let the whole world know that our Creator gave His life for us: “He was in the world, and the world was
made by him, and the world knew him not” (John 1:10). David prophesied of our Lord in the Psalms:
“For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and
my feet” (Psalms 22:16).
The Word of God depicts the current world condition as “the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom
and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified” (Revelation 11:8). The Lord Jesus is crucified in a
spiritual sense by the system identified as the mystery of iniquity. The Eucharist is one example of the
idolatrous worship adopted from Egypt; the Papacy do not deny it that it is a repetition of the crucifixion
of Jesus. Likewise, spiritual Sodom is a depiction of the apostate nations who cover up the man of sin,
who “were once made partakers of the Holy Ghost” (Hebrews 6:4), for whom “it is impossible” “If they
shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God
afresh, and put him to an open shame” (Hebrews 6:4, 6). The day of our Redeemer’s return is
approaching, but “that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be
revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thessalonians 2:3).
Our Redeemer has an appointment with our world; His promise of His glorious return will be fulfilled
soon. “And it shall be said in that day, lo this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us...”
(Isaiah 25:9). “Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him:
and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen” (Revelation 1:7).
477
SECTION TWO: HISTORY, SCIENCE AND
THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
478
CHAPTER TWENTY-
THREE
THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
Introduction
Have you ever looked up at the night sky and wondered how the vast expanse of the universe with its
countless stars and galaxies came into existence. How do you explain the incredible diversity of plants
and animals that fill our habitable planet? How old is the earth, and how can we know for sure. Moreover,
how do you explain the origin of humankind and the beautifully diverse ethnic groups? Put simply; where
did everything come from?
For centuries, we have struggled to understand where we came from. Many theories have been proposed;
some rational and thought provoking, others wildly speculative and seemingly impossible to verify. So
how do we sort through all of these theories to determine which one is the most logical? Modern science
is revealing important clues to this puzzle, helping us to better understand the full picture of our origin.
However, the mystery still remains; where did everything come from?
The standard answer offered is the Big Bang explanation for the origin of the universe and the
evolutionary theory for the origin of the species. This means, whether it was the formation of the universe,
the first life forms, or people, the answer is the same. It was all the result of blind natural processes acting
on matter and energy over many millions and even billions of years. As stated by National Geographic
magazine, “it all began in chaos.” In other words the universe and everything in it, including you and me
are nothing more than the sum total of a series of natural accidents.
For the Big Bang Theory, the universe formed through accidental collisions of atomic particles. For
biological evolution, the species formed through accidental copying errors in the DNA called mutations.
This is the story we have all been told. But what if the standard answer is not as convincing as we may
have been led to believe. What if there are fundamental problems with the Big Bang and the evolutionary
theory that scientists are well aware of but have not been made known to the general public.
In the last decade alone, compelling new evidences from the major fields of science have cast serious
doubt on the evolutionary view of natural history. Discoveries so profound, if made known to the world,
would have the power to drastically change our understanding of the past. Might the biblical view of
origins as described in the book of Genesis offer a more reasonable explanation?
To some, it is extremely naive to even consider the Genesis account of creation on the grounds that it is
believed to be nothing more than a primitive myth and therefore totally incompatible with modern science.
This stems from the widely held perception that creation is religion and evolution is science. But is this
really true? Is it proper to equate evolution with science? Does science have the ability to address
479
questions regarding past events that we were not there to directly observe or verify? Events like the
spontaneous origin of the universe, the origin of life from non-life and the evolution of the earliest life
forms into mammals. Or might we be giving science a power it does not have? To answer this, it is
important that we accurately define science as well as its limitations.
When we think of scientists in white lab coats analyzing cells under a microscope or chemists mixing
acids and bases, it is known as observational science. This is the type of science that led to finding cures
for diseases and our advanced technology —- computers, smartphones, orbiting satellites and Mars rover
robots. A good definition of observational science can be found in standard introductory level biology
textbooks, which states, “Scientific inquiry is a powerful way to know nature, but there are limitations to
the kinds of questions it can answer. These limits are set by science's requirements that hypotheses be
testable and falsifiable and that observations and experimental results be repeatable” (Biology, Seventh
Edition. Campbell/Reece).
Notice observational science has definable limitations to the kinds of questions it can answer. Hypotheses
must be based on observations and experimentation. In addition, hypotheses must be testable and their
results repeatable. Observable, testable and repeatable experimentation are the hallmarks of good
observational science.
When biologists grow bacteria on a nutrient medium to study adaptations, growth rate changes, or
sequence their DNA to determine which genes suffered mutations, they are practicing good observational
science. But answering the question of where bacteria came from to begin with and their origin, is outside
the bounds of observational science.
Science really is about the study of the operation of the present world and lot of people think that there are
ways that science can study the past. Well, not really. When you dig up a fossil, people say they are
looking at the past, but that is not the case because you are looking at the present. Fossils exist in the
present. This is not to say that we cannot make some guesses about the past based on some of the
scientific evidence we see in the present. Nevertheless, our worldview, our way of thinking and our view
of history will obviously influence any reconstructive past. The same goes for stars and galaxies. When
people look at stars and galaxies, they say that they are looking back in time, but that is not the case
because the photons are hitting your eyes and you are looking at the stars at the present. Therefore,
astronomy really takes place in the present. Some may even speculate how galaxies looked like thousands
of years ago based on what they are seeing but the fact is that those types of claims are not scientifically
testable.
The kind of science that makes computers work and puts people on the moon — observational science —
is testable and repeatable in the present. It doesn't take place in the past, it takes place now.
According to Big Bang cosmologists, the universe began 13.7 billion years ago, the earth is said to have
formed 4.5 billion years ago, the first fish evolved 530 million years ago, dinosaurs evolved 230 million
years ago, mammals evolved 120 million years ago, the earliest primates evolved 50 million years ago,
and Homo sapiens evolved from hominids roughly 200,000 years ago.
Realize the most significant evolutionary events all allegedly occurred in the unobservable, unrepeatable,
untestable and therefore unverifiable past. Almost the entire evolutionary theory including the Big Bang
480
is outside the realm of observational science. All of the aforementioned past events and many more not
mentioned are unamenable to the scientific process. No man was there as an eyewitness to provide for us
firsthand knowledge of what actually took place. Thus evolution is more appropriately a history and not
observational science.
Ernst Mayr is hailed by the scientific community as the Darwin of the twentieth century. As a
distinguished evolutionary biologist, Mayr was more than qualified to make the admission that evolution
is a history and not observational science. He affirmed this by saying, “Evolutionary biology in contrast
with physics and chemistry is a historical science — the evolutionist attempts to explain events and
processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the
explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative consisting of a
tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain” (Scientific
American, Vol. 283, No. 1).
Here Mayr did not place evolutionary biology on equal planes with physics and chemistry which are clear
examples of observational science, instead he describes evolution as a historical science, a very inexact
type of inquiry — a tentative reconstruction — meaning it is subject to change whenever the theorizer
feels it is necessary to better fit the evidence.
When evolutionary scientists attempt to explain what they think happened in the past they first
presuppose that the evolutionary view of history is correct. This view of history then serves as a
framework from which all evidence and data are interpreted. Mayr described this presupposed view of
history as a narrative — literally a story written by scientists based on what they believe happened in the
unverifiable past.
The Biblical view of origins as described in the early chapters of Genesis (Chapters 1 to 11) is also
considered a historical narrative. The Genesis account of creation is not written in a style typical of
Hebrew mythology or poetry, instead, it is recorded as a sober historical account with precise
chronological reference points carefully detailing major origins related events including the recent
creation of the heavens and earth, the first male and female, a global flood and the formation of the
various people groups and languages. The implications of this are profound. Rather than an issue of
science versus faith, the creation-evolution controversy ultimately boils down to a face-off between two
opposing histories. The major difference is that the evolutionary view of history was narrated by scientists
within the last 150 years and is tentative to reconstruction whereas the Biblical view of history was
recorded thousands of years ago and is not subject to continual revision.
The Evidence Scale Fallacy
Some might object to accepting the origins issue as a battle between two different histories and insist it
actually comes down to a matter of evidence. You may think: "Do we really need to presuppose a certain
view of history in order to accurately address the question of origins?" Wouldn't it be better to just let the
evidence speak for itself? Well, this may sound like the most objective way to approach the origins issue.
It is based upon a fundamental misconception about the nature and evidence called the evidence scale
fallacy.
481
A lot of people have the impression that the way that you resolve the origins debate is to try to accumulate
the most evidence as if there is a scale. An example is evolutionists having some evidence as well as
creationists and whoever seems to have more has the scale weigh in their favor. The fact is that both
parties have exactly the same evidence. Both have access to fossils and DNA patterns and both look at the
same stars and galaxies and other evidences that have been left. It is not about evidence but a question on
how the evidence is interpreted. What does the evidence mean, and what conclusions can we draw from it?
All these is affected or influenced by our worldview, our way of thinking and our belief system. Evidence
by itself doesn't mean anything, it needs interpretation. When you come across a rock, you can't
objectively know how the rock got there simply by looking at it. It is our view of history that will tell us
something about the past. We can certainly use evidence in the present and try to reconstruct past events
but obviously our view of history is going to have a very profound influence on that. We can't escape that.
We all have a view of history and an understanding of how the universe came to be and that will influence
necessarily our understanding of the evidence.
Take for example the Grand Canyon, both creationists and evolutionists have access to the same
geological features. In an attempt to explain how the Canyon formed, evolutionary geologists have
traditionally interpreted it as having formed over millions of years through slow and gradual processes
based on the evolutionary view of history, namely: the geologic time scale and uniformitarian
assumptions. Geologists who accept the account of Noah's flood described in Genesis interpret the same
evidence differently and describe its formation through catastrophic processes that occurred rapidly and
relatively recently. This simple example describes the true nature of the origins issue.
Notice both creationists and evolutionists are interpreting the same evidence and coming to opposite
conclusions. This is due to the evidence being interpreted through two very different views of history.
This raises an important question: "If it all comes down to an interpretation of the evidence, how do we
know which interpretation is correct?" To answer this, we need to visit the Adirondack mountains of New
York State where a large boulder rests alone on the 2500 foot peak of Mount Azure. The mystery of how
the boulder made its way to the top of the mountain occurred in the unobservable past. It is a historical
science. No one alive today was there to verify through first-hand knowledge what actually took place.
For this reason, this serves as an appropriate analogy for properly understanding the creation-evolution
controversy. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume there are only two possible interpretations for how
the boulder arrived at the peak of Mount Azure. The first interpretation is that Jane is abnormally strong
and managed to push the 20 tonne boulder to the top of the mountain all by herself. The second
interpretation is that the boulder was transported by glacial ice over the top of the Mount. When the
glacier melted it left the boulder behind and is known as erratic geology.
Now, which interpretation is correct? Without hesitation you would immediately conclude the second
interpretation is the right answer. But why was that such an easy decision to make? The answer is simple.
The glacier interpretation is most consistent with the evidence from observational science making it the
far more reasonable explanation. The same level of clarity is possible when investigating the topic of
creation and evolution. Throughout this section, we will be examining key evidences from the major
fields of science including biology, paleoanthropology and genetics. As we carefully examine the shared
evidence, a key question to consider is which view of history, the Biblical view or the evolutionary view
allows for an interpretation that is most consistent with observational science.
482
Evolution is often referred to as a very slow process occurring over many millions of years. For this
reason evolutionary scientists openly acknowledge that large scale changes known as macro-evolution
cannot be directly observed. Naturally this leads to the question: if it is not observable, then on what
grounds can anyone claim evolution is a scientific fact? The typical response is to claim that although we
have never seen macro-evolution we can see evolution happening today on a small scale known as micro-
evolution.
Micro evolution involves tiny genetic modifications that result in superficial changes in an organism such
as an increase in a bird's beak size. This type of minor changes help the organism adapt to a slightly
different environment. No one denies that this type of adaptive fine tuning occurs through mutations and
natural selection, however, proponents of evolution believe that given enough time the small observable
changes seen in micro evolution will inevitably add up to large scale changes known as macro-evolution.
This is the micro-equals-macro fallacy which assumes macro evolution is essentially micro evolution
extrapolated over long periods of time without limit. This is an example of unbounded extrapolation
which is known to be extremely poor science. Although in theory both types of changes involve the same
underlying genetic processes like recombination, mutation, selection, genetic drift and gene flow, there's a
profound and essential difference between macro and micro-evolution that is often overlooked. Macro
evolution requires vast amounts of additional genetic information meaning the formation of many new
functional DNA sequences while micro evolution does not.
According to the evolutionary theory, all living creatures evolved from a single ancestral life form that
lived billions of years ago — a micro organism believed to be similar to that of modern bacteria. As the
first living organism to emerge from the primordial sea, it would have had minimal genetic information
just enough to carry out the essential life functions. The reasonable estimate for the amount of DNA
contained in a hypothetical primitive bacterium would be less than 500000 genetic letters equivalent to
about two 500-page books of typewritten information. This may sound impressive but not compared to
humans with 3.2 billion DNA letters in a single cell — the equivalent of approximately one thousand
500-page books. Thus, in order for an ancestral microbial species to evolve into man, a mind boggling
amount of new functional DNA sequences would have to build up over time. This new genetic
information would be essential in order to specify new functions and structures such as eyes, ears, brain,
heart, lungs and a multitude of other biological features found in higher life forms.
The genetic specifications for even a single type of a higher life form represents a large library of
information, yet there are millions of life forms: plants, sea creatures, birds, reptiles and mammals, each
with their own library of genetic instructions.
Mutations: Are they Degenerative or Regenerative?
Evolutionists claim these new genetic specifications can arise through random mutations and the
reproductive filter of natural selection. Textbooks offer a number of examples that are claimed to be a
direct evidence of evolution in action. Let's look carefully at a couple popular examples to see whether
they involve the addition of new functional DNA sequences in order for macro-evolution to be possible.
Consider the observable changes occurring within canines. Wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingoes and the
483
numerous varieties of domesticated dogs are all believed to have descended from an ancestral wolf
species.
In textbooks, the development of the various dog breeds is cited as a demonstrable example of evolution
on a small scale. McGraw Hill's widely used biology textbook states this type of change will inevitably
lead to large scale evolution over time. In making this claim the textbook authors are committing the
micro-equals-macro fallacy, the blunder of employing unbounded extrapolation.
The superficial differences seen in the various dog breeds are not caused by the formation of new
functional DNA sequences that are required for macro-evolution, instead, the differences are caused by
degenerative mutations in a small number of already existing genes. Mutations in these genes are
responsible for the variation in traits like coat color, face shape and foreshortened limbs. But such
mutations are limited in the extent of change that they can produce before they disrupt the necessary
function of those genes. Factoring in the well understood process of genetic recombination, the
reshuffling of pre-existing genetic information and the formation of the many dog breeds is easily
explained.
Although mutations have provided an additional source of variation for breeders to select from, this is not
the type of change that macro-evolution requires since it has not resulted in any new genes or new genetic
information. In fact, producing dog breeds through artificial selection results in an overall loss of genetic
information. The non-desirable traits that are not selected are literally bred out of the gene group. This
explains why it is possible to breed wolves and select for certain traits over a number of generations to
produce chihuahuas; but you can never breed chihuahuas to get back to wolves. The DNA information
necessary to get back to a wolf has been lost.
So everyone knows that within the dog kind we have lots of different breeds of dogs and some people
might say, “Well, if we can see all these different breeds of dogs: long eared, short eared, long furred,
short furred... certainly that's an example of new genetic information that's being added to have those
traits.” But when we observe this at the genetic level, that is not what we see. We are just seeing variation
on traits that those organisms already have. The genes that code for fur in a dog can produce long fur,
short fur and different colors in the dog's coat but they're never going to become wings or feathers
because they don't have the information to be able to do that; and there's simply no genetic mechanism
that allows you to add the information that you need for evolution to occur. All you see is variation within
the traits that they already have.
The modern theory of evolution is founded on the concept that beneficial mutations are the raw material
for eventually building new sets of genetic instructions. One of the most popularly cited examples of
beneficial mutations is the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Standard biology textbooks
claim it as direct evidence for evolution. But is true evolution really taking place here?
Certain classes of antibiotics are considered prodrugs, which means they do not pose a threat to the
bacteria until they are activated into their reactive or lethal form through the assistance of enzymes
naturally produced by the bacteria. However, random mutations in the bacterium have been shown to
disable the function of the required enzyme, preventing the antibiotic from converting into it's lethal form,
resulting in resistant bacteria.
4384
Although these mutations may be considered beneficial since the bacteria are now able to survive the
antibiotic treatments, the genetic information that encodes an otherwise useful enzyme was lost. This is
the opposite direction required for macro evolution. In the long run these types of loss-of-function
mutations are counterproductive to macro-evolution. For this reason, bacterial resistance to antibiotics
cannot be considered as a direct evidence for evolution.
One of the ways in which bacteria become resistant to antibiotics is through horizontal gene transfer and
this is something that it's pretty unique to bacteria as human beings and animals don't do it. What happens
here is the process of how bacteria essentially swaps genetic information. So genetic information like an
antibiotic resistant gene can be transferred from one bacterial organism to another; but simply transferring
genetic information is not what evolution needs as they're both bacteria. The process didn't essentially
change the essence of that bacteria and therefore that is not the type of genetic change that we need to go
from one organism to another. We have to acquire lots of new information to generate new functional
genes to go from one kind of organism to another.
For evolution to create higher life forms from lower life forms, there must be a very large increase in total
genetic information. Additional genetic information is needed to encode the complex biological
capabilities that characterize higher life forms. Any hypothetical large scale evolutionary change would
require vast amounts of new functional DNA sequences which would have to arise through beneficial
mutations filtered by natural selection. Although adaptive changes can occur through rare beneficial
mutations, it is consistently at the expense of destroying DNA information as seen with bacterial
resistance to antibiotics.
There are many mutations that are advantageous since they're beneficial in a way that helps an organism
to adapt to a certain circumstance. But when we actually look at what happened, the mutation almost
always involves loss of function such as a protein's proper functioning. So, there's a disease called sickle
cell anemia where the red blood cells of the victims are misshapen. Instead of being shaped as biconcave
discs, they are shaped like a crescent moon or a sickle and those deformed red blood cells can't carry as
much oxygen as they should. These deformed cells are also prone to causing blood clots. Well, how is
that beneficial?
If you have this terrible disease you're not as susceptible to malarial parasites. So, if you live in areas
where malaria causes lots of deaths, you won't get infected by the parasites. In this situation, you are
basically trading one pathology for another where it is better to have sickle cell anemia where you're sick
but not dead than to get malaria and die. So it's a very bizarre idea to think that sickle cell anemia is a
beneficial trait as there are some evolutionists who use it because there are very few convincing examples
of “beneficial mutations.”
The information-eroding nature of “beneficial mutations” make sense when we think about what
mutations really are. They are literally random copying errors in the DNA. Think of them as genetic
typographical errors. By their very nature, they disrupt cellular processes such as gene regulation and
enzyme function by scrambling the organism's genetic instruction manual. They do not create information,
they erode information bit by bit.
This type of genetic change occurring over deep time will never result in genome building evolution. It is
going in the wrong direction informationally. Thus the common argument that given enough time, a series
485
of small changes — micro evolution — will eventually add up to large scale changes — macro evolution
— isa fallacy.
The rarity of beneficial mutations complicates things further. It is widely acknowledged in the genetics
community that harmful mutations vastly outnumber beneficial mutations. These destructive mutations
are eroding the information content of the genome at a much faster rate than rare beneficial mutations
could build it. So if you have bad mutations, even just a fraction of them accumulated over time in a very
slow rate, and you have very few beneficial mutations to counteract that, you're going downhill.
The fact that beneficial mutations are very rare, and that most mutations are neutral or detrimental, is one
of the best tested facts of biology. In addition, most of these harmful mutations cause very subtle
biological effects. They are called slightly harmful or nearly neutral mutations because their effect is too
subtle to be affected by natural selection. This means natural selection can do nothing to remove them
from the population. They are below what is known as the selection threshold.
Consequently, these slightly harmful mutations are accumulating in the genome at a steady rate. With
every generation, the average couple passes on roughly one hundred additional mutations to their children.
It is because of these slightly harmful mutations that humankind is undergoing genetic degeneration. In
fact, there is strong evidence that we are not evolving but rather devolving.
Although natural selection can slow genetic degeneration, it cannot stop it. The reason natural selection
fails is because mutations are coming into the population faster than they can be selected away and also
because most mutations, especially beneficial mutations are too subtle thus making their impact invisible
to natural selection.
Genetic Entropy
Genetic entropy is increasingly being recognized as a very serious problem for the modern theory of
evolution. From the 1950s to the present, the apparent certainty of genetic degeneration of man has been
repeatedly acknowledged by leading population geneticists, some of whom played a central role in the
development of the modern theory of evolution.
Contemporary population geneticist, Alexey Kondrashov titled his paper published in the journal of
theoretical biology, “Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why have we
not died a hundred times over.” To date, the problem of genetic degeneration remains unresolved despite
numerous attempts by leaders in the field to rescue the theory.
The evidence from modern genetics demonstrates that the observable changes in animals are going in the
wrong direction informationally to lead to large scale evolution. While species certainly have the ability
to adapt, the extensive change is limited based on the available genetic information. Rather than one kind
of creature evolving into a totally new kind through random mutations and natural selection, the Genesis
account reveals that in the beginning God created distinct kinds of plants and animals, each to reproduce
according to their kind. The first chapter in Genesis reads:
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and
beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and
486
cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was
good.” Genesis 1:24-25
If what the Biblical view of biology suggests is true, that each basic kind of life arose independently, then
Darwin's vision of a single tree of life with it's root tracing back to a primordial bacterium, would have to
be replaced with a forest of trees reflecting an independent origin for each form of life. Each tree
branching out into it's own diverse set of species and each tree having a built-in genetic diversity allowing
for the formation of numerous variations — branches within those basic kinds — thus enabling their
descendants to survive and adapt to a wide variety of environments.
This however is not macro evolution since it does not involve the formation of any new functional DNA
sequences. It is simply the fragmentation of each created kind into beautiful and diversed varying species
through the sorting, selection and reshuffling of the already existing genetic information just as the
biblical view of biology suggests.
Paleoanthropology
Since the time of Darwin, many determined individuals have searched for missing links between ape and
man. Periodically, fragmentary skeletons have been found and artists' reconstruction of their bones are
presented to the public as undeniable evidence that man evolved from apelike creatures. To scientists who
study their bones, these alleged transitional forms are called hominids.
A family tree or bush is often used to represent how hominids are thought to be related. Most of the
hominid species are understood by experts in the field to be evolutionary dead ends. Apes or variants of
humans that went extinct shown as broken side branches.
Paleoanthropologists generally recognized only a few hominid species in the direct human lineage.
Among them are some of the most well known discoveries such as the famous lucy skeleton. If human
evolution is a valid theory, the hominid fossil should fall along a traceable path starting with an early
apelike species such as Lucy into some form of Homo habilis intermediate then into the human looking
Homo erectus and Neanderthal type and finally into modern Homo sapiens.
What you may not realize is that there are leading experts in the field that contest the status of each of
these alleged hominid ancestors. Let's take a look at what we know about these hominids.
Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) - Lucy is the nickname given to a partial fossil skeleton discovered in
1974 in the Afar region of Ethiopia by paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson. The bones of Lucy are
believed to represent a single individual skeleton. Johanson claimed that Lucy belonged to an extinct
population of ape like creatures that once roamed Africa between 3 to 4 million years ago. The species
Lucy is said to represent was named by Johanson as Australopithecus afarensis meaning Southern ape
from Afar. To date, over four hundred specimens have been attributed to Lucy's kind (afarensis) but
nearly all of those consist of isolated bones or bone fragments that were found eroding out of the hillsides
jumbled together with the fossils of all kinds of African species.
With only 20% of Lucy's skeleton preserved, it remains one of the most complete afarensis skeletons
discovered. However, the bones attributed to Lucy and her kind were found disconnected and broadly
487
scattered across the Afar landscape. Johanson claims that Lucy is 40% complete. Well, actually if you
count the missing bones of the hands and feet it's actually only 20% complete, so much of it is missing.
Moreover, they had to sift 20 tons of sediment; so, they would stream them and get rid of all the loose
sediment and then wash it by the river and they would pick out the bones that Johanson said may belong
to Lucy's skeleton. There were hundreds of fragments so they had to sift not only just 20 tons of sediment
but also had to cover an area of about fifty square meters. So, do all those bones belong to Lucy's skeleton?
It is an open question.
In 2015, an evolutionary scientific journal showed that actually one of the vertebrae bones belongs to a
baboon but for forty years it went unnoticed and Lucy was reconstructed in museums with that bone as a
part of the skeleton all around the world. So, do we really know for sure if Lucy's skeleton and the
broader kind belong to the same species? Well, I don't think we we should trust that because even today
numerous experts in the field have written extensively in the scientific literature that afarensis appears to
be a commixture of ape bones and human bones. It is not a single species and a valid taxon according to
these evolutionary paleoanthropologists.
It is widely acknowledged that the fossils attributed to afarensis display a substantial range of variation in
both size and anatomy leading many paleo-experts to question whether all of the remains belong to the
same species. In fact, Johanson originally reported in the journal “Nature” that at least two different
species from separate genera were represented in his collection of bones. He described some of these
fossils as looking virtually identical to modern humans while other fossils he described as looking
distinctly like apes. Later, Johanson decided to reclassify all of these fossils including the human looking
bones to a single new species which he named Australopithecus afarensis.
The extensive range of variations seen in these fossils were now explained as physical differences
between males and females of the same species called sexual dimorphism. To make the story work,
paleoanthropologists have claimed that the larger human looking bones belonged to males that walked
upright like modern humans whereas the smaller ape looking bones belonged to females that lived in the
trees. However, experts in the field have taken issue with Johanson's sexual dimorphism hypothesis and
have cited evidence that his original interpretation was more accurate, that afarensis is a jumble of ape
and human bones.
This makes more sense as we have never seen a sexually dimorphism in any species where the males
locomote fundamentally differently than the females and so the bones attributed to Lucy are actually a
mixture of ape and human bones, therefore Lucy can't be placed in a valid taxon as it is not a real species.
This has actually been promoted by numerous experts in the field including famous paleo-expert Richard
Leakey and his mother Mary Leakey.
In 1976, footprints fossilized in ash were found in Laetoli, Tanzania by British paleoanthropologist Mary
Leakey and were dated to be 3.7 million years old. Researchers described the Laetoli footprints as looking
virtually identical to those made by humans. The fossilized footprints lack a fundamental characteristic of
all living apes, a grasping big toe. In describing her own discovery, Mary Leakey acknowledged that they
don't look any different from modern human footprints, an observation that is widely acknowledged by
experts in the field. This, however, presents a fundamental challenge for evolutionary scientists, since
modern humans are not supposed to have existed 3.7 million years ago. Such a finding would effectively
falsify the ape to man theory. To resolve this conflict, Johanson and colleagues claimed that Lucy's kind
488
formed the human looking footprints in Laetoli, even though the footprints were found 1000 miles away
from where Lucy was discovered in Hadar and dated over half a million years older. The actual skeletal
remains of Lucy could not substantiate their claim either because the critical bones of the feet were
missing. Soon after the discovery of Lucy, a large collection of fossils recovered in a separate site in
Hadar cast more doubt on these claims.
The sample included a number of hand and foot bones including a partial foot skeleton that was assigned
to Lucy's species afarensis. In the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, evolutionary anatomists
Jack Stern and Randall Susman performed a comprehensive analysis of the hand and foot bones. It was
clear to these researchers that the Hadar hands and feet were strikingly similar to living African apes.
They concluded that there is no evidence that any living primate has long curved heavy muscled hands
and feet for any purpose other than to meet the demands of full or part time tree dwelling life. This has
left evolutionists with a dilemma which Scientific American has described as the “world's oldest
whodunit, an unsolved mystery.”
If Lucy's kind can not be credited with forming the human looking Laetoli footprints, then who or what
did? In an attempt to solve this mystery, former researcher of the Laetoli footprints, Russell Tuttle
suggests a far-fetched idea.
Tuttle writes in Natural History, “In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli
footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis. The Laetoli footprints hint that at least
one other hominid roamed Africa at about the same time.”
Perhaps a better explanation for why the footprints look identical to humans is simply because they were
formed by humans. Tuttle admits this would be the most reasonable interpretation except for one problem.
He believes the dating methods prove the ash layers were deposited long before the first humans evolved.
But what if the dates obtained were wrong? As it turns out the Laetoli footprints were dated using the
potassium-argon method, a radioisotope dating method that has an embarrassing track record of yielding
exaggerated ages —— millions of years — when testing its accuracy on rocks of known age that formed
recently.
The major problem with all the radioactive dating methods is the first assumption of the initial conditions.
It is assumed that when a volcano erupts and the lava flows over the ground, all the gases escape and
when the rock cools, you only have the parent potassium in the rock. This is a big problem as we weren't
there in the past to test that assumption and that's why it's critical that we look at present-day volcanic
eruptions. One of the things that we have discovered is that the argon doesn't escape. A classic example is
at Mount St. Helens. It erupted in the 1980s with the various lava flows building up a new dome. This
lava flow that we know erupted in the 1980s was tested ten years later with potassium-argon and what
was discovered was that it a gave an age of up to over a million years. What we are seeing here is that a
rock that is supposed to be 10 years old gives an exaggerated age through this radioactive dating method.
Therefore, if we can't trust radioactive dating methods for rocks and fossils of known ages, should we
trust it with rocks and fossils of unknown ages. This is a real problem for evolutionists because they use
such methods in establishing a chronology for the supposed human ancestor fossils. Therefore, a more
reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that the dating methods are unreliable and the Laetoli
footprints look human because they were formed by humans.
489
Handy Man (Homo habilis) - The next alleged hominid species on the path to modern humans has
traditionally been Homo habilis. The discovery of Homo habilis was announced to the world in 1964. The
bones were found in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania and consisted of two broken skull fragments, a deformed
lower jaw bone, a partial hand and a tooth molar. Famous paleoanthropologists, Louis and Mary Leakey
claimed the fossils belonged to the earliest toolmaker and was given the name “Handy man”. To this day,
Homo habilis is presented in textbooks as an ape like ancestor to man as few people realize there is an
ongoing debate among the paleoanthropology community regarding the status of Homo habilis. Most
experts in the field now deny Homo habilis a position in the direct human lineage and many others reject
the validity of the species as a classification. Much of the controversy has to do the extremely incomplete
and fragmentary nature of the remains.
None of the bones identified as Homo habilis were found physically connected to a more complete
skeleton. The loose bones were scattered widely across the excavated area jumbled together in a mixed
bone bed containing many different species including monkeys, extinct apes and humans. Some of the
bones are described as remarkably like those of modern humans and others remarkably ape like.
Paleo-experts have attempted to resolve these contradictory findings by reassigning the appropriate bones
to the extinct ape genus Australopithecus. To a growing number of experts the fossils of Homo habilis
look too much like a tree dwelling ape to be considered a human ancestor. Among them is Bernard Wood,
a world renowned evolutionary paleoanthropologist and foremost authority on Homo habilis who has
extensively studied the fossil remains for the past fifty years since its discovery.
In the journal titled 'Nature', Wood makes the following assessment: “Even with all the fossil evidence
and analytical techniques from the past 50 years, a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains
elusive... the species is too unlike H. erectus to be its immediate ancestor.” Here, Wood has come to the
firm conclusion that Homo habilis is not our ancestor.
Upright man (Homo erectus) - In the late 19" Century, Dutch anatomist Eugene Dubois set off to the
Indonesian island of Java. Along the banks of the Solo River he came upon a skullcap, a femur bone and a
tooth. The leg bone resembled a modern human's but the skullcap displayed some unusual features.
Dubois interpreted the skullcap as having ape like qualities and decides to classify the fossils to a new
species that he named Pithecanthropus erectus. The Greek name literally translates as upright ape-man in
accordance with Dubois’ conviction that humans evolved from ape-like creatures.
Since then, a number of specimens from Africa, Europe and Asia have been found and all have
subsequently been renamed Homo erectus, reflecting its current status as the immediate ancestor to Homo
sapiens; a claim that has not been substantiated by the fossil evidence. Most of the recovered bones are
highly fragmentary and they consist of fragmented skulls, jaws, isolated teeth and a single intact femur
bone.
Only one nearly complete Homo erectus skeleton has been found and nicknamed "Turkana Boy' and this
was recovered in Kenya in 1984. For the first time, it provided paleoanthropologists with a clearer picture
of what Homo erectus looked like. The anatomy of the skeleton and overall size of "Turkana Boy’ is
unquestionably human. Dental evidence and unfused growth plates indicated to anatomists that had he
lived until adulthood, he would have grown to over six feet tall. Experts in the field now universally
acknowledge that the overall anatomy of Homo erectus overlaps extensively with modern humans. In fact,
490
a number of evolutionary paleo-experts insist upon reclassifying them as Homo sapiens. In their view, the
skeletal features fall within the range of human variation. In addition, archaeological evidence indicates
Homo erectus was able to perform sophisticated tasks and complete extraordinary feats requiring modern
human intelligence including the ability to construct a seaworthy vessel and navigate significant stretches
of open seas.
Neanderthal Man (Homo neanderthalensis) - Paleoanthropologists have traditionally interpreted
Neanderthals as a separate sub-human species. In popular movies they are portrayed as half-stooped
British cave men with low intelligence. Few people realize this mental image stems from an outdated
evolutionary perception that neanderthals are a missing link between ape and man. In 1908, French
anatomist Marcellin Boule fraudulently arranged the bones to appear ape-like with a grasping big toe and
a bent-knee bent-hip posture. In his view, Neanderthals were a degenerate race, too primitive to be
considered Homo sapiens. Boule's errors were eventually corrected. Now with thousands of Neanderthal
specimens and a complete skeleton assembled, it is clear to paleoanthropologists that Neanderthals were
human in their anatomy albeit more robustly built but with few relatively minor differences. Experts on
human evolution acknowledge that a Neanderthal in a modern dress would go unnoticed in a city.
Foremost authority on Neanderthals, Erik Trinkaus confirms: “Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal
skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy
that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of
modern humans.”
Archaeology has further revealed an impressive cultural inventory including fire, stone tools tailored
clothing, art, musical instruments, cosmetics, jewelry and ceremonial burial of their loved ones — a
defining aspect of what it means to be human.
In 2010, Swedish geneticist Svante Paéabo and his international team of researchers sequenced the first
ever nearly complete Neanderthal genome, confirming once and for all that they were fully human and
members of our own species — Homo sapiens.
When DNA was discovered in Neanderthal bones that were supposed to be too old to contain any of it, it
sent shockwaves to the scientific community because the evolutionary model places the existence of
Neanderthals between 30,000 years to 100,000 year ago. Fossils that existed in such a timeframe
shouldn't have DNA. From the DNA sequencing, it is clear that interbreeding happened between
Neanderthals and Humans. This evidence, together with their genome structure, proves that Neanderthals
were humans. Thus, the age old evolutionary assumption that Neanderthals were a sub-human species has
been disproven.
Evolutionary paleoanthropologists traditionally expected the hominid fossil record to reveal a traceable
linear progression where an ape-like Australopithecus species such as Lucy evolved into Homo habilis
which evolved into Homo erectus which evolved into Homo sapiens. In recent decades, however, this
view has been dramatically overturned. Instead of a simple human family tree with a few branches, the
paleo-community now describes the hominid fossil record as a messy bush with many disconnected
branches showing no clear evolutionary progression from ape to man. The pattern that is emerging in the
hominid fossil record is surprisingly consistent with a Biblical view of human origins recorded in Genesis
which teaches that humans and apes were created as independent forms of life.
491
Indeed, there appears to be a clear separation between two distinct types in the fossil record. The human
type called “Homo” and the extinct ape type called “Australopithecines.” These two types are found
together in rock strata of equivalent age as far back as hominid fossils are found just as the Laetoli
footprints have confirmed. This shows that humans have always coexisted with a diversity of apes rather
than one evolving into the other.
Genetics
It is hard to find anyone who has not heard the often repeated claim that humans and chimpanzees are
genetically 98 to 99% identical. This has been promoted to the world as proof that humans share a
common evolutionary ancestor with chimps. However, recent studies now challenge this claim.
Evolutionary geneticists have acknowledged that the actual genetic differences are far greater than we've
been told. For example, primate evolutionist, Todd Preuss states: “It is now clear that the genetic
differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their
genomes are not 98% or 99% identical.
Earlier studies published in the evolutionary scientific literature reported an overall DNA similarity of 98
to 99%. However, large portions of the chimp genome did not align with the human genome and so were
excluded from the reported estimates. For instance, the algorithm parameters used in the major milestone
publication in ‘Nature’ reported by the chimpanzee sequencing and analysis consortium omitted over 100
million DNA letters. When accounting for these large non-alignable regions and other emitted sequenced
data, the actual chimp/human DNA similarity is significantly lower than the 98 to 99% identity claims.
When evolutionists originally brought this claims, they didn't have full genomic data and so they actually
based their estimates of similarity upon little snippets of the genome. Here, they were choosing protein
coding sequences which are the most similar and explain why we have similar biochemistry. So, initially
they were saying that 98 to 99% of the genome must be similar between chimps and humans. The
textbooks still say that although geneticists know that that is not correct.
What is the actual genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees? This is a question that comes up
over and over again in the creation-evolution debate. So, let's stick down to what the scientific data
actually says. If you look at the 2005 Chimpanzee Genome Paper in Nature and look at the subsequent
papers such as the Bonobo Paper, the Gorilla Paper and the Orangutan Paper, you will realize that all of
them give a consistent answer that most of our DNA can be aligned to a chimpanzee's and vice versa and
in that region that does align, it's about 1 to 2% different in terms of single letter differences. This brings
us to a second question: Are there sections of human DNA that fail to align to a chimpanzee's and are
there sections of a chimpanzee's DNA that fail to align to a human's? The answer is yes; and it is far more
DNA than that 1 or 2% difference. So, if you incorporate all of these numbers together, the stuff that
aligns is almost identical and the stuff that can't be aligned at all gives an approximate percentage of 85.
What is even more important is what that percentage translates to in terms of absolute differences. So, an
85% identity and a 15% difference in terms of raw DNA letters, represents 300 to 400 million single
DNA letter differences. That's a massive number.
492
The evolutionary theory claims that humans evolved from a hypothetical chimp-like ancestor roughly 6
million years ago. This is said to have occurred through a long series of beneficial mutations. In light of
the actual genomic differences between humans and chimps, this is simply not genetically feasible.
The more accurate chimp/human DNA similarity estimate of 85% represents 300 to 400 million DNA
letter differences — an extreme level of genetic discontinuity. This means, in order to evolve a chimp-like
ancestor to modern humans, hundreds of millions of beneficial mutations need to arise in an ancestral
population. The difficulty with accomplishing this has to do with the extremely long waiting time
required for establishing even the smallest sense of mutually dependent mutations. Even granting a best-
case scenario for evolution by generously assuming that human and chimp DNA is 99% identical, the
remaining 1% would still be a difference of 30 million DNA letters — an impossible genetic barrier for
evolution to traverse in six million years.
Let's assume that it's still only 1% because that's not correct as no one believes that now. To get 1% of a
genome difference requires 30 million mutations. That is a lot of new information. And waiting for 8
specific mutations, takes more time than the evolutionary time period since the Big Bang. So, the answer
is no. It is not conceivable. You cannot change the program of an ape into the programming for a human
in any amount of time.
People ask: “Well, what is the problem? You're saying there is a hundred new mutations per person per
generation in a big population. That's billions of mutations every generation. What is the problem of
getting this information that codes for something?” The difference is that genetic damage is non-specific.
Deleterious mutations can happen anywhere in the genome, there is no specificity and therefore, creating
damage is easy. In the case of a manuscript or a computer program, it is easy to correct them by changing
letters, but for genes, it is really hard to improve them, and you have to wait for a very long time for the
specific letter to mutate into a specific alternative letter at a specific site to actually create any type of
benefit. So the waiting time for beneficial mutations is different and longer than the waiting time for
neutral or deleterious mutations. For specific and beneficial mutations, you have to wait for a really really
long time for it to happen.
Waiting for the right mutations to arise and become established in a pre-human population greatly
exceeds evolutionary time scales. Leading evolutionary geneticists acknowledge it is a serious problem
for the theory and devastating for the ape-to-man scenario.
Population geneticist Michael Lynch, confesses the following in the Journal of Molecular Biology and
evolution: “A central problem in the evolutionary theory concerns the mechanisms by which adaptations
requiring multiple mutations emerge in natural populations.”
Lynch's calculations suggest the length of time required for just two specific mutations to become
established in a pre-human population is over 200 million years which is beyond the 6 million year time
span during which an ape-like creature is said to have evolved into man. Other studies reporting in
scientific literature show similar results
Evolutionary geneticists Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt of Cornell University report in The Annals of
Applied Probability that the average waiting time to form a slightly longer DNA sequence of eight
specific mutations is on the order of 650 million years but this estimate is incomplete. When accounting
493
for random loss due to a well-established principle known as genetic drift, the actual waiting time should
be a hundred fold longer, roughly 65 billion years. This is four times longer than the reputed age of the
universe, assuming a Big Bang singularity 13.7 billion years ago.
At best, all evolution can hope to accomplish in the prescribed 6 million year time span, is the formation
of a tiny DNA sequence, no more than a few genetic letters in length and totally incapable of producing a
single new gene.
Modern genetics has demonstrated that it is impossible for humans to have evolved from a chimp-like
ancestor via random mutations. It is an unbridgeable genetic gap for evolution to traverse, even given
billions of years. If humans did not evolve from ape-like creatures then where did we come from. The
Genesis account of creation states that God made Adam and Eve, not as mythical beings but as the literal
historical ancestors of all living people. They were the first two human beings created, with all humans
descending from this first couple. From a purely genetic standpoint, is it scientifically feasible that all
humans descended from a single mother and a single father? Many insist this is absurd and yet the genetic
evidence for a literal Adam and Eve is inside each one of us and it is found in our DNA.
In 1987, a milestone paper was published in the journal 'Nature’ by leading evolutionary geneticists who
announced the results of a mitochondrial DNA analysis. Geneticists from the University of California
found that all humans are descended from one woman thought to have lived in Africa 100,000 to 200,000
years ago.
Their results sent shockwaves throughout the scientific community and called for a major rewrite of the
evolutionary view of human origins to accommodate the new data. The revision gave rise to the now
widely accepted “Out of Africa” theory. Proponents of the theory couldn't help but notice its uncanny
resemblance to the Biblical Eve.
?
In acknowledgement of this, they gave the genetic mother of us all the name “Mitochondrial Eve.’
According to the evolutionary perspective, Mitochondrial Eve was an unnamed woman who evolved out
of Africa from a Homo erectus population of ape men. Not long after the first mitochondrial DNA studies
revealed a single mother of us all, evolutionary geneticists found similar results when analyzing
sequences on the male Y-chromosome. In 1997, a team of researchers from Stanford University reported
to the American Society of Human Genetics that all men inherited their Y-chromosome from a single
male ancestor. The sequencing of thousands of Y-chromosomes from diverse people groups living around
the world has revealed an overall lack of Y-chromosome diversity. All men share the same Y-
chromosome plus a small number of mutations consistent with a single male ancestor of the human race.
Once again, evolutionary geneticists couldn't help but give the father of us all a Biblical name, “Y-
chromosome Adam. Just as they did with Mitochondrial Eve, evolutionists interpret Y-chromosome
Adam to be an evolved ape man from Africa that lived sometime around 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
The evolutionary community acknowledges that there is a literal Y-chromosome Adam and a literal
Mitochondrial Eve. They say it is clear that all of the Y-chromosomes on this planet trace back to a single
individual who didn't live so long ago. The Y-chromosome is only passed through the males (father to son)
while the mitochondrial chromosome is only transferred through the females. Geneticists agree that all
people on the planet get their mitochondria from a woman who lived not so long ago and this is
uncontested. Initially, from the estimates of evolutionists on how long those individuals lived, they
494
claimed that they didn't live in the same time span. Now that they've reworked their numbers, they are
always reassessing the time scales and many have come to a conclusion that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-
chromosome Adam lived in the same time span.
There are two fundamental differences between the Adam and Eve of the Bible and the evolutionary
interpretation of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. The first difference has to do with time
and the second has to do with population size. The Genesis account indicates Adam and Eve lived
recently, just thousands of years ago and that they were the only two people alive at the time of their
creation. The evolutionary model claims they lived around 100,000 to 200,000 years ago and belonged to
a hominid population of 10,000 individuals. But as you will see, it is not the genetic data that conflicts
with the Biblical account of Adam and Eve; the conflict comes from inferences about time and population
size.
Evolutionary geneticists estimate that genetic Adam and Eve lived around 100,000 to 200,000 years ago
using a method known as the molecular clock. The technique relies on the assumption that mutations
accumulate in certain regions of the genome at a constant rate over deep time. Evolutionary scientists
have to further assume that humans evolved from a chimp-like ancestor roughly 6 million years ago in
order to calibrate the molecular clock. Both claims are problematic and have been called into question by
the genetics community.
Distinguished evolutionary geneticist, David Reich of Harvard, confesses in the publication ‘Nature’: “The
fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us. It means that the dates we get out of genetics
are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.”
Scientists are now using a more straightforward approach that does not require ape-to-man evolutionary
assumptions to determine mutation rates. It involves directly measuring mutation rates in the present
comparing parents and offspring known as the pedigree method. When comparing DNA sequences
between parents and children, the measured mutation rates are typically 10 to 20 times higher than those
inferred based on assumptions of ape-to-man evolution. When the molecular clock is calibrated using the
empirically measured mutation rates, both mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam lived just
thousands of years ago. In discussing the age of Mitochondrial Eve, evolutionary scientists in "Trends in
Genetics' acknowledge this discrepancy:
“MtDNA datasets often exhibit anomalous patterns. One of these anomalies is the discrepancy between
mtDNA mutation rates observed in evolutionary timescales (e.g. in dating the divergence between two
species) and those measured within family pedigrees. If the high mutation rates seen in some human
pedigrees were used to calculate the age of our most-recent female common ancestor, she would have
lived just 6000 years ago, a date more consistent with Biblical Eve than Mitochondrial Eve.” Trends in
Genetics, Vol. 19, No. 2, February 2003.
There is a long standing debate and argument in genetics that deals with the difference between what's
called the phylogenetic mutation rate and the genealogical mutation rate. If you look at a family, you can
count the differences between the people and see that they have had some mutations. Through this, you
can actually calculate a mutation rate over time in today's timing —- known time — as we know what the
mutation rate is. The evolutionary community doesn't like to use that rate because it's too fast. They use
what is called the phylogenetic rate where they look at the differences between humans and chimpanzees
495
— not the real rate, but the differences — and they say that we have been separated for so many millions
of years. There is a time when evolutionists agreed that the difference was 3 million years. Now it's 6
million years with some evolutionists arguing that it's 13 million years because they are having a hard
time dealing with this mathematically.
Take the differences between humans and chimpanzees in some gene like mitochondria or Y-
chromosomes and divide that by the supposed time that separates us (6 million years) and you'll get a
very slow mutation rate. But if you look at the people that live today, count up the number of differences
between them and divide that by the time span since their ancestor lived (maybe their great great
grandfather), you are going to get a mutation rate that is much faster. When we use that rate, Adam and
Eve fall into the Biblical timeframe. So when we use today's science which is measurable and we know is
true, Adam and Eve are Biblical.
While the actual genetic data reveals a single Mitochondrial Eve ancestor and a single Y-chromosome
ancestor, evolutionists have insisted they must have lived in a larger population. For this reason, they
caution the general public not to mistake the evolutionary Adam and Eve with the Adam and Eve of the
Bible; yet they acknowledge there can be no direct evidence for the larger population size of 10,000
because all other mitochondrial and Y-chromosome lineages supposedly died off removing all traces of
their existence, leaving just one “lucky mother” and one “lucky father” just as paleo-expert Chris Stringer
said.
In an attempt to explain what would otherwise be another remarkable Biblical coincidence, proponents of
the ape-to-man model invoke what is known as the “Coalescent Theory.” This theory assumes that over
many generations, it is inevitable that eventually only a single mitochondrial and Y-chromosome lineages
will remain.
The “Coalescent theory” is based upon the assumption of random mating. So, you need a single
population whose persons have equal likelihood of intermarriage. That has never been the case from an
evolutionary point of view. Humans and pre-humans have always been in tribes that are separated and so,
there is no random mating. In fact, if you look at the charts that show coalescence, all you have to do is to
look and see one sub population among dozens or hundreds of other subpopulations and those would be
producing a different coalescence to a different Adam or to a different Eve. Basically the coalescence
argument fails and so their rebuttal position is not scientifically valid. It is relatively reckless.
Evolutionary scientists reasoned that if humanity started with just two people, it could not explain the
total amount of human diversity we see today. For this reason, a population of 10,000 became a central
tenet of the current model.
It is typically assumed that Adam and Eve would have had no genetic variants and no genetic diversity.
However, there's no reason to assume they were created as nearly identical clones. If Adam and Eve were
created with built-in diversity for traits such as skin color, all of the different looking people groups could
easily arise in a Biblical timeframe. There would be no reason to wait millions of years for the slow
accumulation of mutations if the diversity was encoded in their genomes right from the beginning.
496
If Adam and Eve were heterozygous as we would reasonably expect, extensive genetic diversity would
quickly arise simply through sexual reproduction which reshuffles pre-existing variation to produce
different combinations of traits.
The idea that God created an initial pair with differences between them and within them is called
heterozygosity. This is an idea that has massive consequences in modern genetics and virtually all of
genetic discussions. It also provides a convenient explanation that is very plausible for how you get all the
ethno-linguistic differences that we see today. Humans are considered one species and we can produce
variety in a single generation. So, if a dark-skinned Sudanese person marries light-skinned Finnish
individual, their children will have an intermediate skin tone that has features from both parents; also, it
can happen that in the same generation, an Australian Aborigine and a Han Chinese get married and they
have children. If the offspring of these two mixed marriages had children, they could produce a whole
diversity of individuals. Why is that? This is because people today still have heterozygosity which is a
lesser form of heterozygosity than what Adam and Eve had. In other words, Adam and Eve could have
produced in their many children every version of human that we see today. Once you have an original
pair, an original population and an original set of eight that has heterozygosity if we are talking about the
Flood, you can explain people groups just like that.
A striking example of built-in genetic variation can be seen in the example of twins born from mid-brown
parents. Mother Kylee Hodgson and father Remi Horder gave birth to twins — Remee and Kian — who
appeared racially different. The two-toned fraternal twins shared the same womb and were born a minute
apart. What most people would typically see as racial differences arose in a single generation due to gene
segregation. Just like people living today, one can reasonably expect Adam and Eve to have had a large
pool of genetic variation built in to their genomes.
Prior to modern genetics, evolutionary scientists claimed that they were fundamentally different races of
humans that evolved in diverse parts of the world over a long period of time. This model was known as
the “Multiregional Hypothesis.” This perception changed with the advent of DNA sequencing which
revealed that all human beings are remarkably similar genetically. It is now well established among the
scientific community that all people are 99.9% genetically identical regardless of their skin color or
ethnicity. The so-called racial features that we tend to focus on are essentially only skin-deep reflecting
trivial differences in our genetic material. Physical traits like eye shape and melanin production amount to
a miniscule 0.012% difference in our DNA. This means that regardless of our cultural differences,
genetically, we are all part of one big human family.
God created every organism and designed them in a way that they have internal diversity. Therefore, you
don't have to wait for mutations. So, the waiting time goes away if you want adaptation without deep
waiting time. Even a single organism has heterozygosity where you would see a lot of genetic diversity.
Two individuals have four chromosome sets and they have the ability to basically accommodate every
possible variant. Therefore, two people are enough to allow for a vast amount of genetic diversity that
could be used by natural selection and adaptations in new environments, as they would not need deep
time to do that.
The findings from modern genetics have compelled evolutionary scientists to develop a revised story of
human origins that shares many striking similarities with the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel
497
dispersion. The new model is called the “Out of Africa Theory” and has been popular for many years.
This theory proposes that there was a near extinction event causing a population bottleneck that reduced
humanity to a single breeding population of just a few thousand survivors.
In the “Out of Africa Theory” it is postulated that there was a human population of about 10,000 people
for an indeterminate amount of time. They never really say how long it is but let's say 10,000 to 100,000
years. Let's compare a modern species that has about that many individuals like the African cheetah. The
members of this species are having massive problems: birth defects are increasing, reproductive
incompatibility in couples is increasing, litter size is decreasing, and all the population biologists are
essentially assuming that cheetahs are going to go extinct. How did Homo sapiens evolve? Evolutionists
claim that we supposedly went from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens during a population bottleneck that
should have driven us to extinction.
This theoretical near-extinction event has been used to explain why all humans are nearly identical
genetically. The “Out of Africa Theory” claims all living humans originated from this small population
(about 10,000 individuals) that lived in the general vicinity of Northeast Africa. Alternative studies
suggest that the small founding population was a little further North in the general vicinity of the Middle
East. The survivors of this theoretical near-extinction event suddenly grew very rapidly, splitting into
numerous smaller tribes which dispersed outward and gradually filled Europe, Africa, Asia and
eventually the Americas. Each initial tribe gave rise to its own language and culture and continued to split
and disperse to form the people groups and languages we see today. Each migrating tribe would have
carried with it a different sampling of the original population's gene pool, rapidly producing the
distinctive features that some use to define race. In this model, mutations would occur but they are not
necessary to explain these distinctive features and this means deep time would not be required either.
Just using standard population genetic principles, we can explain the origin of races easily in hundreds of
thousands of years. All we need is the population to fragment into smaller populations. Isolation by
distance is going to cause changes over time independently in each population either through natural
selection or just random drift. So, we have a model for that at the Tower of Babel. A few hundred years
after the Flood, God separated the nations according to the male lineages (The Y-chromosome) that
define each population and they spread out on the earth; and they would have remained separated from
one another because of language differences for a time. That's all we need. Once you do that, you're going
to have regional differences amongst the people. So, all of a sudden you'll have people that will start to
look different based on where they live. Complexion and facial features are some of these differences that
we can see today. Isolation in a short amount of time is what was needed for all these differences to be
manifested among the different races we see today.
Evolutionary geneticists reporting in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences have named
this specific model, the “Instantaneous Divergence Model.” This model is virtually indistinguishable from
the Biblical model of the human dispersion associated with the Tower of Babel as recorded in Genesis
chapter 11.
“And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech... So the LORD scattered them abroad from
thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called
Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the
LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” Genesis 11:1,8-9.
498
From a Biblical standpoint, how do we know that these people were once together after the Flood? We
can see this in the established cultures about the stories of the Flood that were later adapted and corrupted
by adding mythological elements to the original Noah's Flood event that took place just thousands of
years ago as explained in the Bible. We have the Mavantara-Sandhya in Hinduism, Deucalion and Pyrrha
in Greek mythology, the Cheyenne flood story and the Epic of Gilgamesh among the people of
Mesopotamia.
In all these findings from the various fields of science, we can see the consistency of the Biblical account
of creation and its validity through the ages unlike the evolutionary model that keeps changing its story.
499
CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR
RADIOMETRIC DATING
Introduction
The Bible has God miraculously creating the world and everything in it in just six days about 6000 years
ago, but the theory of evolution has a much different time scale taking millions of years to go from goo to
me and you by a way of the zoo. Which view is correct? Continue reading to find out.
The very first chapter of the Bible states that God created the universe, earth, land and sea and everything
in them in just six solar days. We know the six days of creation were ordinary days because the Bible
frames each of the days using evening and morning and then assigns a number to each. God himself wrote
that the days were real days when he inscribed the ten commandments with his own hand, stating that we
should work and rest in a cycle that matches His creation week of six days followed by a day of rest.
We can look back at Scripture in reference to the fourth commandment and ask: “When did God make the
heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.” Well, the obvious answer is that God was referring
to the creation account in Genesis where the days are even defined in the text itself as normal solar days.
Also, we know that the creation week happened just thousands, not millions of years ago because the
Bible traces back human genealogy to Adam who was created on the sixth day as the last of God's
creation.
Adam was charged to take dominion over all that God had just created and he started his rule by naming
all of the animals.
This is how the Bible explains; that the earth and everything in it was created in 6 days just about six
thousand years ago. The evolutionary view on the other hand, is built on the foundation of deep time, with
almost every pillar of the theory depending on millions of years. We see this idea promoted in books even
starting from children's books, museums around the world, state parks across the world and in several
movies and TV shows.
The following is an example of how high school biology textbooks state that deep time is the foundation
of the evolution theory by acknowledging the following:
“Evolution takes a long time. If life has evolved, then Earth must be very old. Geologists now use
radioactivity to establish the age of certain rocks and fossils. This kind of data could have shown that the
Earth is young. If that had happened, Darwin’s ideas would have been refuted and abandoned. Instead,
radioactive dating indicates that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old—plenty of time for evolution and
natural selection to take place.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Biology. (Boston, MA.: Pearson,
2006), p. 466.
500
But as we show here, geologists do not use radioactivity to establish the age of certain rocks. They instead
use selected radioactivity results to confirm what they need to see. As discussed in the previous chapter,
this viewpoint, being secular, contradicts God’s stated Word in Genesis and even the Ten Commandments,
where He wrote with His own hand that He created the heavens, Earth, sea, and all that is in them in six
days (Exodus 20:11).
Belief in deep time rests upon evolution’s required time. That’s sure putting a lot of faith in something
that can’t be tested through direct observation. After all, plenty of assumptions go into the calculations, as
we’ ll discuss in this chapter.
Keep in mind that while this chapter reviews the technical details behind radiometric dating, only two
very basic but completely catastrophic “fatal flaws” undermine radiometric dating.
The first fatal flaw is that it relies upon untestable assumptions. The entire practice of radiometric dating
stands or falls on the veracity of four untestable assumptions.
The assumptions are untestable because we cannot go back millions of years to verify the findings done
today in a laboratory, and we cannot go back in time to test the original conditions in which the rocks
were formed. If these assumptions that underlie radiometric dating are not true, then the entire theory falls
flat, like a chair without its four legs.
The second fatal flaw clearly reveals that at least one of those assumptions must actually be wrong
because radiometric dating fails to correctly date rocks of known ages.
For example, in the case of Mount St. Helens, scientists watched rocks being formed in the 1980s, but
when they sent the samples to a laboratory 10 years later for dating, the 10-year-old rocks returned ages
of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.
Similarly, some rocks return with radiometric “ages” twice as old as the accepted age for earth. Most
rocks return with conflicting radiometric “ages.” In these cases, researchers select results that match what
they already believe about the age of the Earth.
An overview of Radiometric Dating
Fossil remains are found in sedimentary rock layers. Layers of sediment form when various size particles
(e.g., dirt, rocks, and vegetation) accumulate in places such as deserts, rivers, lakes, and the ocean.
Most texts teach that it takes a long time for these sediments to build up, with older layers buried beneath
younger layers. Fossils found in lower layers are deemed to be older than those in the upper layers, older
on the bottom younger on the top. This is called relative age dating, the first step.
Next, evolutionary scientists then use index fossils to help establish the relative ages of rock layers that
are not directly related to one another and their fossils.
Index fossils are distinct fossils, usually of an extinct organism found in only one or a few layers, though
that layer or layers outcrops in many places—at least that’s the theory.
501
They help establish and correlate the relative ages of rock layers. Index fossils typically have a short
stratigraphic or vertical range. In reality, many index fossils occur above or below their expected ranges.
In some cases, they turn up still alive today, but these can go unreported.
Evolutionists assume that the creature evolved somehow, lived for a certain time period, and then died out.
Textbooks are correct when they state that relative dating provides no information whatsoever about a
fossil’s absolute age.
Nevertheless, most textbook writers and the scientists they rely on grew up with a belief in uniformitarian
geologic processes. The principle of uniformity is a philosophy and an assumption that the slow geologic
processes going on today must explain the deposits of the past.
They teach the motto, “the present is the key to the past.” It’s not. As any judge in court will attest,
eyewitness records record the past more accurately. Also, keen observations in the field testify that the
sediments comprising the ancient rock layers were laid down catastrophically, not slowly over millions of
years.
Today, the geologic time scale shows ages based on radiometric age dating. Many textbook authors
consider radiometric ages as absolute ages. However, as you will soon learn, these techniques stray far
from absolute dates, though they may reveal relative ages of some rocks.
The Age of the Earth
Today’s evolutionists base their age of the Earth on their interpretation of radioactive elements. They
assign 4.5 billion years to earth based on the belief that earth itself evolved, so to speak, from a molten
mass. But they cannot directly date the earth using selected isotopes because they believe all rocks have
cycled over imagined eons, leaving no original rocks to test.
They assume meteorites formed when earth did. Researchers age-dated a meteorite to sometime around
the age they would accept. Thus, the earth itself has no direct evidence for its vast evolutionary age
assignment.
The various rock layers are given names with assigned ages (Check the Uniformitarian Geologic Time
Scale figure below). Those who believe these ever-changing but always unimaginably old age
assignments call each rock System a “Period.”
The names help, but their age assignments derive from results chosen to agree with evolutionary time. To
understand exactly why, we must first learn the basics of radioactive elements and of the techniques used
when treating these systems of elements as clocks.
Many elements on the periodic table have radioactive forms. Stable atoms have a set number of protons,
neutrons, and orbital electrons. Isotopes are atoms of the same elements with the same number of protons
but different numbers of neutrons.
Some isotopes are radioactive and others are stable. A radioactive nucleus is not stable. It changes into
another element by emitting particles and/or radiation.
502
Uniformitarian Geologic Time Scale
PERIOD: Alleged Age Young Earth
: Years Evidences
Quaternary :
Pili 2,600,000 Soft Frog with bloody
iocene Bn nieaininniny
- : 5,300,000, _ bone marrow
Ceribapie Terti :__ Miocene 23,000,000~ Salamander muscle
wii ‘ Oligocene
Eocene 30,900,000 Young coal, Penguin
Paleocene 55,800,000 feathers, Lizard skin
- - -65,500,000
< Young Diamonds
: ; - - 145,500,000 Young Coal
Mesozoic ‘ Dinosaur DNA, blood,
| Triassic = "201,600,000 bod vessels and protein
T1aSS1iC
- - 251,000,000
Permian
Phanerozoic
- - 299,000,000
Pennsylvanian = Young Coal
- - 318,000,000
Mississippian
_
=
1?
127
}
ee,
a7)
nn
2
ae
n
}
=
o
_
o
e-
Es
sen
nee
=
eH
- -359,000,000
Paleozoic | Devonian
- - 416,000,000
- - 444 000,000
Ordovician
- - 488,000,000
Cambrian
- - 542,000,000
© Helium in zircon crystals
Proterozoic Eon
- - 2,500,000,000
Archean Eon
Precambrian
3,850,000,000
The time scale is placed vertically because older sedimentary deposits are buried beneath younger
sedimentary deposits. The assumption of slow geologic processes and radiometric age dating has
drastically inflated the age of the Earth and its strata.
503
A basic way to express the rate of radioactive decay is called the half-life. This equals the length of time
needed for 50% of a quantity of radioactive material to decay.
Unstable radioactive isotopes called parent elements become stable elements called daughter elements.
Each radioactive element has its own specific half-life (see the table below).
Radiometric Isotopes and Half-Lives
Radioactive Parent Element
Stable Daughter Element
Half-Life
Carbon-14 (“C)
Nitrogen-14 (“N)
5,730 Years
Potassium-40 (*"K)
Argon-40 (““Ar)
1.3 Billion Years
Uranium-238 (°U)
Lead-206 ?Pb)
4.5 Billion Years
Rubidium-87 (*’Rb)
Strontium-87 (°’Sr)
48.6 Billion Years
Note: Carbon-14 is not used to date minerals or rocks, but is used for organic remains that contain carbon, such as wood, bone,
or Shells.
To estimate a radioisotope age of a crystalline rock, geologists measure the ratio between radioactive
parent and stable daughter products in the rock.
They can even isolate isotopes from specific, crystallized minerals within a rock. They then use a model
to convert the measured ratio into an age estimate.
The models incorporate key assumptions, like the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes in the originally
formed rock. How can anyone know this information? We can’t. We must assume some starting condition.
Evolutionists assume that as soon as a crystalline rock cooled from melt, it inherited no daughter product
from the melt. This way, they can have their clock start at zero.
However, when they find isotope ratios that contradict other measurements or evolution, they often
invoke inherited daughter product. This saves the desired age assignments.
Igneous (crystalline) rocks — those that have formed from molten magma or lava — are the primary rock
types analyzed to determine radiometric ages. For example, let’s assume that when an igneous rock
solidified, a certain mineral in it contained 1,000 atoms of radioactive potassium (“°K) and zero atoms of
argon (“Ar). After one half-life of 1.3 billion years, the rock would contain 500 “°K and 500 ““Ar atoms,
since 50% has decayed. This is a 500:500 or 500-parent:500-daughter ratio, which reduces to a 1:1 ratio.
If the sample contained this ratio, then the rock would be declared 1.3 billion years old. If the ratio is
greater than 1:1, then not even one half-life has expired, so the rock would be younger. However, if the
ratio is less than 1:1, then the rock is considered older than the half-life for that system.
504
Decay of Radioactive potassium-40 to argon-40
1:1 ratio
1:0 ratio
1:3 ratio
1.3 by
1:7 ratio
After three half-lives of this system, totaling 3.9 billion years, only 125 of the original 1000 radioactive
potassium-40 atoms remain, assuming even decay for all that time.
Age-dating a rock requires at least these four basic assumptions:
Assumption #1: Laboratory measurements that have no human error or misjudgments.
Measuring the radioactive parent and stable daughter elements to obtain the ratio between them
must be accurate, and it usually is. Keep in mind that most laboratory technicians believe in deep
time. This sets the time periods they expect. They all memorized the geologic time scale long
before they approached their research, and thus may not even consider that processes other than
radioisotope decay may have produced the accurately measured isotope ratios.
Assumption #2: The rock began with zero daughter element isotopes. Next, this technician
assumes that all the radioactive parent isotopes began decaying right when the mineral
crystallized from a melt. He also assumes none of the stable daughter element was present at this
time. How can anyone really know the mineral began with 100% radioactive parent and 0%
daughter elements? What if some stable daughter element was already present when the rock
formed? After all, these experts often explain away unexpected radioisotope age results using the
excuse that daughter or parent isotopes must have been present when the rock formed. Without
knowledge of the starting condition, the use of isotopes as clocks means nothing.
Assumption #3: The rock maintained a “closed system.” A closed system means that no extra
parent or daughter elements have been added or removed throughout the history of the rock. Have
505
you ever seen an atom? Of course not. It is too small, but we must think about this on an atomic
level. Decay by-products like argon and helium are both gases. Neither gas tends to attach to any
other atom, meaning they rarely do chemistry. Instead of reacting with atoms in rock crystals,
they build up in rock systems and can move in and out of the rocks. One leading expert in isotope
geology states that most minerals do not even form in closed systems. A closed system would
retain all the argon that radioactive potassium produces. He emphasizes that for a radioactive-
determined date to be true, the mineral must be in a closed system. Is there any such thing as a
closed system when speaking of rocks?
e Assumption #4: The decay rate remained constant. The constant-decay rate assumption
assumes the decay rate remained the same throughout the history of the rock. Lab experiments
have shown that most changes in temperature, pressure, and the chemical environment have very
little effect on decay rates. These experiments have led researchers to have great confidence that
this is a reasonable assumption, but it may not hold true. Is the following quote an overstatement
of known science? “Radioactive transmutations must have gone on at the present rates under all
the conditions that have existed on Earth in the geologic past.” A.O. Woodford, Historical
Geology. (W.H. Freeman and Company, 1965): 191-220. Some scientists have found evidence
that zircon crystals endured high levels of radioactive decay in the past, as discussed below. This
evidence challenges assumption #4.
To illustrate how much radioisotope dating hinges on assumptions, imagine you encounter a burning
candle sitting on a table. How long has that candle been burning? We can calculate the answer if we know
the candle’s ‘burn rate history’ and ‘original length'. However, if the original length is not known, or if it
cannot be verified that the burning rate has been constant, it is impossible to tell for sure how long the
candle was burning. A similar problem occurs with radiometric dating of rocks. Since the initial physical
state of the rock is unknowable, workers must assume it.
Brand New Rocks Give Old “Ages”
Scientific literature omitted from public school textbooks reveal radioisotope age assignments much older
than the known ages of many rocks. These results first arrived in the 1960s and 1970s, but most of the
scientific community still pays no attention. Argon and helium isotopes were measured from recent basalt
lava erupted on the deep ocean floor from the Kilauea volcano in Hawaii. Researchers calculated up to
22,000,000 years for brand new rocks![vi] The problem is common. The following table gives six
examples among many more.
Young Volcanic Rocks with Really Old Whole-Rock K-Ar (Potassium-Argon) Model Ages.
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii AD 1959 8,500,000 years
Volcanic bomb, Mt. Stromboli, Italy AD 1963 2,400,000 years
506
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily AD 1964 700,000 years
Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian, Glass <500 years 12,600,000 years
Mountains, California
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii AD 1800-1801 22,800,000 years
Mt. St. Helens dacite lava dome, Washington | AD 1986 350,000 years
The oldest real age of these recent volcanic rocks is less than 500 years. People witnessed and described
the molten lava solidify into most of these rocks just decades ago. Many of these were only about 10
years old. And yet ““K-*°Ar dating gives ages from 350,000 to >22,800,000 years.
Potassium-Argon (“"K-“°Ar) has been the most widespread method of radioactive age-dating for the
Phanerozoic rocks, where most fossils occur. The misdated rocks shown above violate the initial
condition assumption of no radiogenic argon (“°Ar) present when the igneous rock formed. There is too
much “Ar present in recent lava flows. Thus, the method gives excessively old ages for recent rocks. The
amounts of argon in these rocks indicate they carry isotope “ages” much, much older than their known
ages. Could the argon they measured have come from a source other than radioactive potassium decay? If
so, then geologists have been trusting a faulty method. If they can’t obtain correct values for rocks of
known ages, then why should we trust the values they obtain for rocks of unknown ages?
These wrong radioisotope ages violate the initial condition assumption of zero (0%) parent argon present
when the rock formed. Furthermore, the slow radioactive decay of “°K shows that there was insufficient
time since cooling for measurable amounts of “’Ar to have accumulated in the rock. Therefore, radiogenic
argon (“°Ar) was already present in the rocks as they formed.
Radiometric age dating should no longer be sold to the public as providing reliable, absolute ages. Excess
argon invalidates the initial condition assumption for potassium dating, and excess helium invalidates the
closed-system assumption for uranium dating. The ages shown on the uniformitarian geologic time scale
should be removed.
“Young” Fossils in “Old” Mud
Researchers have scoured the Ono Formation near Redding in northern California and have described it in
scientific publications for more than 140 years. Because the area has millions of fossils (including the
valuable ammonites) and fossilized wood trapped in the same mudflow layers, it provides a unique
opportunity for carbon dating. If the wood still has relatively short-lived radiocarbon inside it, then the
age of the supposedly ancient fossils would need revision.
Geologist Andrew Snelling gathered four samples of ammonites and wood buried and fossilized together
in this solidified mudstone and sent them to the IsoTrace Radiocarbon Laboratory at the University of
Toronto, Canada for dating analysis. The following table summarizes the results.
507
Ono Formation Radiocarbon Dating Results.
SPECIMEN Rock layers Ammonites Wood
DATING 112 to 120 Million 36,400 to 48,710 carbon | 32780 to 42390 carbon
(conventional age) years. years.
Because the ammonites and wood fossils came from a rock unit conventionally regarded as 112 to 120
million years old, the fossils should share that same age. Such an age far exceeds the limit of the
radioactive carbon ('“C) method, which in theory extends to artifacts less than 100,000 carbon years old.
In other words, if these fossils are really over 100 million years old, then there should have been
absolutely no measurable '“C in them — but there was — enough to produce easily measurable ages of
32,000 to 48,000 years!
Scientists who believe in long ages assert that the ammonites and wood samples were contaminated with
modern carbon in the ground, during sampling, or even in the laboratory. But this study took extensive
steps to guard against such contamination. So how can 36,000 carbon-year-old ammonites and 32,000
carbon-year-old wood be stuck in a mudflow of 112 million or more conventional years? Two logical
options present themselves:
Option 1: One of the three dates is correct and the other two are wrong.
Option 2: All three of the dates are wrong.
If Biblical history is accurate as we believe it is, then the second option is the correct choice — none of
the dates are correct. The fact that measurable 'C existed in the ammonites and wood fossils shows that
they are very young — certainly not 112-120 million years old. But how can they still outdate the Biblical
age of Creation of about 6,000 years? A number of factors help explain this. First, the Earth’s stronger
magnetic field in the recent past would have reduced the atmospheric 'C production rate. Second,
because the recent Genesis Flood removed so much carbon from the biosphere and buried it, the
measured apparent radiocarbon ages are still much higher than the true ages of the fossil ammonites and
wood.
Therefore, the true ages of the ammonites and wood are consistent with their burial during the Genesis
Flood about 4,400 years ago. Back then, muddy waters washed sediments and ammonites onto land.
All these evidences show that we cannot trust radiometric dating for fossils of unknown ages as it has
failed the test with fossils and rocks of known ages.
508
CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE
DINOSAURS
Introduction
Dinosaurs were created by God on day six of creation, approximately 6,000 years ago. Dinosaurs were
originally vegetarian. During the global flood, many were buried and fossilized, but two of each kind
survived on Noah’s ark. Dinosaurs eventually died out due to human activity, climate changes, or other
factors.
When Did Dinosaurs Live?
Evolutionists claim dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. But it is important to realize that when they dig
up a dinosaur bone, it does not have a label attached showing its date. The Bible states that God made the
land animals, including dinosaurs, on day six (Genesis 1:24—25), so they date from around 6,000 years
ago.
Types of Dinosaurs
Hypsilophodon foxii - Hypsilophodon foxii was one of the first dinosaurs discovered. This small, plant-
eating animal was first discovered in 1849, a mere seven years after Sir Richard Owen coined the term
dinosaur.
Tyrannosaurus rex - Tyrannosaurus rex, first described in 1905, this “tyrant lizard king” still holds the
crown as the largest and most fearsome terrestrial predator ever discovered in North America. Since T.
rex 1s found only in Flood deposits, our knowledge of this great animal is limited to his fossilized remains.
The sauropods - The sauropods (“lizard feet”) included the largest land animals in history. With fossils
on every continent, sauropods are easily recognized by their extremely long necks and tails, which are
anchored to a huge body and held up by towering legs.
Albertaceratops nesmoi - A newly uncovered dinosaur, Albertaceratops nesmoi, had horns about three—
feet long (located right above its eyebrows). In the evolutionists’ timeline, dinosaurs that were older than
this one had larger horns, and the ones that followed had smaller horns. Hence, evolutionists say, this
creature represents a middle step.
509
Dinosaurs and the Bible
As you add up all of the dates in the Bible, you’! come to the conclusion that the creation of the earth and
animals, including the dinosaurs, occurred only thousands of years ago, not millions of years ago. Thus, if
the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past few thousands of years.
Behemoth in the Bible
Two great creatures, Behemoth and Leviathan, are described by God in Job. Some commentators have
suggested behemoth was an elephant or hippo, but the description simply doesn’t match (e.g., behemoth
“moves his “tail like a cedar”). It appears God is describing a sauropod dinosaur (Behemoth) and a
fearsome now-extinct sea creature (Leviathan).
Leviathan in the Bible
Though technically not a dinosaur but rather a marine reptile that may have also been able to come up
onto land (Job 41:25 and 30), Leviathan can correctly be called a "dragon" which includes terrestrial,
aquatic, and aerial reptiles.
In the biblical book of Job, God challenges Job by questioning his ability to capture Leviathan and make
it his servant (Job 41:1-4). Leviathan is not a creature that little children can play with (Job 41:5) and is
too large for traders to sell (Job 41:6).
God reminds Job that if a man is even thinking of capturing Leviathan with harpoons or fishing spears,
then he needs to consider the battle that will take place (Job 41:7-8). If he does engage in battle with
Leviathan, it will be the first and only time. Leviathan cannot be subdued by any man: this is a false hope,
as he “is laid low even at the sight of him” (Job 41:9).
Humans & Dinosaurs Together?
Biblical creationists believe that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time because God said that he
created man and land animals on day six. There is historical evidence of dinosaurs and man living
together, such as the petroglyph in Natural Bridges, Utah, legends and stories of dragons in Europe, and
the dragon motif in China. But one striking artifact in Asia is the bas-relief picture of a dinosaur in the
ruins of Angkor outside of Siem Reap, Cambodia.
Old-earth proponents often argue that if man and dinosaurs lived at the same time, their fossils should be
found in the same layers. Biblical creationists believe that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time
because God said that He created man and land animals on Day Six. So, why don’t we find human fossils
buried with dinosaur fossils?
It has long been stated by evolutionists that since human and dinosaur fossils are not found together, they
did not coexist. Bodie Hodge takes issue with this fallacy. Those who do not believe the plain reading of
510
Genesis, such as many non-Christians and evolutionists believe the rock and fossil layers on earth
represent millions of years of earth history and that man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time.
According to the evolutionary timeline, crocodiles have been around since the time of the dinosaurs—and
yet, humans live with crocodiles today. So why is it ridiculous to think humans and dinosaurs lived at the
same time?
Looking at the survival techniques at the time of the flood, you would expect larger animals with stronger
muscles like dinosaurs to retreat to higher altitudes faster than humans and when fossilization took place,
the organisms that were together were fossilized together. This is one of the main reasons why we don't
find human and dinosaur fossils together.
Soft Tissue Found in Dinosaurs
The survival of soft tissue and DNA within dinosaur bones would be powerful evidence against a
millions-of-years age for those fossils. The findings support the view that these dinosaurs lived only 4,300
years ago and were buried during the global Flood.
A team in England confirmed the existence of soft skin tissue, known as keratin, in fossilized lizard skin.
A team in Sweden showed that collagen has survived in the fossilized bone of a mosasaur. Since the
researchers believe these fossils are 50 to 70 million years old, they need to explain how fragile biological
molecules can survive so long. Paleontologists uncovered a Velociraptor apparently embroiled in a fight
to the death with a Protoceratops. The Velociraptor’s hands were grabbing the head shield of the
Protoceratops, while its sickle claw appears to be lodged deep into the body cavity. What explanations do
secular scientists offer for such sudden burial and preservation? Such an event could only happen if there
was quick fossilization in a catastrophe such as the worldwide Flood.
Also, Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her team caught the world’s attention with a Science paper in 2005 that
described intact blood vessels and red blood cells in a T. rex bone. But in fact, secular scientists have been
reporting soft tissue in dinosaurs for decades in sometimes seldom-read technical literature.
Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?
In Genesis 6:19—20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven or seven pairs of the
“clean” animals) were brought by God to the ark. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were
represented on the ark.
Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different “kinds” of dinosaurs.
Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the ark
were probably “teenagers” or young adults.
511
Were Dinosaurs Dragons?
There are many ancient descriptions and images of dragons. Many of these descriptions and images are
similar to drawings and depictions of how scientists believe dinosaurs would have looked.
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping
thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the
earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according
to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to
Our likeness. . . . So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and
female... . So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” (Genesis 1:24-31)
Globally, there are many ancient descriptions and images of dragons. Interestingly, many of these
descriptions and images are similar to drawings and depictions of how scientists believe dinosaurs would
have looked. It makes sense: just as flood legends have a basis in a real event, dragon legends also have a
basis in reality—that people saw animals they called “dragons.” Furthermore, God’s Word clearly teaches
that all the land animals (which included what we call dinosaurs), along with Adam and Eve, were made
on the sixth day of creation. Dinosaurs and humans lived together.
Now, secularists mock the idea that dragons (such as those mentioned in Psalm 91:13 and Isaiah 27:1)
were real, and that they include dinosaurs. This is because it would mean dinosaurs once lived with
people, and evolutionists are adamant in their religion that dinosaurs died out millions of years before
humans supposedly evolved.
To believe dinosaurs lived with people would mean that evolution and its millions of years are not true.
Ancient historians and writers clearly believed creatures like dragons were real. They describe seeing
them first hand—often in the context of other types of animals that still live today.
Are Birds Evolved Dinosaurs?
Evolutionists claim that birds evolved from Dinosaurs. The fossil record does not reveal an evolutionary
progression in feather development, nor does it reveal transitional animals that are part bird and part
dinosaur. No scientific observations have ever shown a way that dinosaurs could acquire the genetic
information to make the dramatic changes that would have been necessary to evolve into birds.
Having a true bird appear in the fossil record before alleged feathered dinosaurs, no mechanism to change
scales into feathers, no mechanism to change a reptilian respiratory system into an avian respiratory
system, and no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn’t turn
into birds. The evidence is consistent with what the Bible teaches about birds being unique and created
after their kinds.
Genesis is clear that God didn’t make birds from pre-existing dinosaurs. In fact, dinosaurs (land animals
made on day six) came after winged creatures made on day five, according to the Bible. Both biblically
and scientifically, chicken-eaters around the world can rest easy—they aren’t eating mutant dinosaurs.
512
Dinosaur Movies
Dinosaurs enthrall society, and many movies are produced to feed this fascination. But how much of these
movies is fact and how much is evolutionary fiction?
Television programs, thousands of books, and countless hours of research by thousands of qualified
scientists have been devoted to studying dinosaurs. Is there an answer to their “mystery”? Sadly, many of
the materials produced on the topic of dinosaurs teach parents and children evolutionary ideas and lead
them away from believing the Bible.
What Happened to the Dinosaurs?
After Noah’s flood, around 4,300 years ago, the remnant of the land animals, including dinosaurs, came
off the ark and lived in the present world, along with people. Because of sin, the judgments of the curse in
Eden and the flood of Noah’s day have greatly changed earth over the past 6,000 years. Post-flood
climatic change, lack of food, disease, and man’s activities caused many types of animals to become
extinct. The dinosaurs, like many other creatures, died out.
Conclusion: Dinosaurs as “Missionary Lizards”
As Christians, we can use dinosaurs as “missionary lizards.” We can take what is popular with the culture
and show how God’s Word explains it better. For example, soft tissue, like blood vessels and red blood
cells, has been found in dinosaur bones. This soft tissue could not last millions of years. The fossils
confirm a young earth. We can use dinosaurs to help people trust the history of the Bible and also trust in
the message of Jesus Christ that is also found in God’s Word.
513
CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX
NOAH'S FLOOD AND CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS
How could a massive, global flood be triggered? Do plate tectonics provide a valid mechanism?
What Is Plate Tectonics?
The earth’s thin rocky outer layer (3-45 mi [5—70 km] thick) is called “the crust.” On the continents it
consists of sedimentary rock layers—some containing fossils and some folded and contorted—together
with an underlying crystalline rocky basement of granites and metamorphosed sedimentary rocks. In
places, the crystalline rocks are exposed at the earth’s surface, usually as a result of erosion. Beneath the
crust is what geologists call the mantle, which consists of dense, warm-to-hot (but solid) rock that extends
to a depth of 1,800 mi (2,900 km). Below the mantle lies the earth’s core, composed mostly of iron. All
but the innermost part of the core is molten.
Investigations of the earth’s surface have revealed that it has been divided globally by past geologic
processes into what today is a mosaic of rigid blocks called “plates.” Observations indicate that these
plates have moved large distances relative to one another in the past and that they are still moving very
slowly today. The word “tectonics” has to do with earth movements; so the study of the movements and
interactions among these plates is called “plate tectonics.” Because almost all the plate motions occurred
in the past, plate tectonics is, strictly speaking, an interpretation, model, or theoretical description of what
geologists envisage happened to these plates through earth’s history.
The general principles of plate tectonics theory may be stated as follows: deformation occurs at the edges
of the plates by three types of horizontal motion—extension (rifting or moving apart), transform faulting
(horizontal slippage along a large fault line), and compression, mostly by subduction (one plate plunging
beneath another).
Extension occurs where the seafloor is being pulled apart or split along rift zones, such as along the axes
of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the East Pacific Rise. This is often called “seafloor spreading,” which
occurs where two oceanic plates move away from each other horizontally, with new molten material from
the mantle beneath rising between them to form new oceanic crust. Similar extensional splitting of a
continental crustal plate can also occur, such as along the East African Rift Zone.
Transform faulting occurs where one plate is sliding horizontally past another, such as along the well-
known San Andreas Fault of California. Compressional deformation occurs where two plates move
toward one another. If an oceanic crustal plate is moving toward an adjacent continental crustal plate, then
the former will usually subduct (plunge) beneath the latter. Examples are the Pacific and Cocos Plates that
are subducting beneath Japan and South America, respectively. When two continental crustal plates
collide, the compressional deformation usually crumples the rock in the collision zone to produce a
mountain range. For example, the Indian-Australian Plate has collided with the Eurasian Plate to form the
Himalayas.
514
History of Plate Tectonics
The idea that the continents had drifted apart was first suggested by a creationist, Antonio Snider. He
observed from the statement in Genesis 1:9—10 about God’s gathering together the seas into one place that
at that point in earth history there may have been only a single landmass. He also noticed the close fit of
the coastlines of western Africa and eastern South America. So he proposed that the breakup of that
supercontinent with subsequent horizontal movements of the new continents to their present positions
occurred catastrophically during the Flood.
However, his theory went unnoticed, perhaps because Darwin’s book, which was published the same year,
drew so much fanfare. The year 1859 was a bad year for attention to be given to any other new scientific
theory, especially one that supported a biblical view of earth history. And it also didn’t help that Snider
published his book in French.
It wasn’t until the early twentieth century that the theory of continental drift was acknowledged by the
scientific community, through a book by Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist. However, for almost
50 years the overwhelming majority of geologists spurned the theory, primarily because a handful of
seismologists claimed the strength of the mantle rock was too high to allow continents to drift in the
manner Wegener had proposed. Their estimates of mantle rock strength were derived from the way
seismic waves behave as they traveled through the earth at that time.
For this half-century the majority of geologists maintained that continents were stationary, and they
accused the handful of colleagues who promoted the drift concept of indulging in pseudo-scientific
fantasy that violated basic principles of physics. Today that persuasion has been reversed—plate tectonics,
incorporating continental drift, is the ruling perspective.
What caused such a dramatic about-face? Between 1962 and 1968 four main lines of independent
experiments and measurements brought about the birth of the theory of plate tectonics:
1. Mapping of the topography of the seafloor using echo depth-sounders;
Measuring the magnetic field above the seafloor using magnetometers;
3. “Timing” of the north-south reversals of the earth’s magnetic field using the magnetic memory of
continental rocks and their radioactive “ages;” and
4. Determining very accurately the location of earthquakes using a worldwide network of
seismometers.
An important fifth line of evidence was the careful laboratory measurement of how mantle minerals
deform under stress. This measurement can convincingly demonstrate that mantle rock can deform by
large amounts on timescales longer than the few seconds typical of seismic oscillations.
Additionally, most geologists became rapidly convinced of plate tectonics theory because it elegantly and
powerfully explained so many observations and lines of evidence:
1. The jigsaw puzzle fit of the continents (taking into account the continental shelves);
2. The correlation of fossils and fossil-bearing strata across the ocean basins (e.g., the coal beds of
North America and Europe);
515
3. The mirror image zebra-striped pattern of magnetic reversals in the volcanic rocks of the seafloor
parallel to the mid-ocean rift zones in the plates on either side of the zone, consistent with a
moving apart of the plates (seafloor spreading);
4. The location of most of the world’s earthquakes at the boundaries between the plates, consistent
with earthquakes being caused by two plates moving relative to one another;
5. The existence of the deep seafloor trenches invariably located where earthquake activity suggests
an oceanic plate is plunging into the mantle beneath another plate;
6. The oblique pattern of earthquakes adjacent to these trenches (subduction zones), consistent with
an oblique path of motion of a subducting slab into the mantle;
7. The location of volcanic belts (e.g., the Pacific “ring of fire”) adjacent to deep sea trenches and
above subducting slabs, consistent with subducted sediments on the tops of down-going slabs
encountering melting temperatures in the mantle; and
8. The location of mountain belts at or adjacent to convergent plate boundaries (where the plates are
colliding).
Slow-and-Gradual or Catastrophic?
Because of the scientific community’s commitment to the uniformitarian assumptions and framework for
earth history, most geologists take for granted that the movement of the earth’s plates has been slow and
gradual over long eons. After all, if today’s measured rates of plate drift—about 0.5—-6 in (2-15 cm) per
year—are extrapolated uniformly back into the past, it requires about 100 million years for the ocean
basins and mountain ranges to form. And this rate of drift is consistent with the estimated 4.8 mi> (20 km’)
of molten magma that currently rises globally each year to create new oceanic crust.
On the other hand, many other observations are incompatible with slow-and-gradual plate tectonics.
While the seafloor surface is relatively smooth, zebra-stripe magnetic patterns are obtained when the ship-
towed instrument (magnetometer) observations average over mile-sized patches. Drilling into the oceanic
crust of the mid-ocean ridges has also revealed that those smooth patterns are not present at depth in the
actual rocks.7 Instead, the magnetic polarity changes rapidly and erratically down the drill-holes. This is
contrary to what would be expected with slow-and-gradual formation of the new oceanic crust
accompanied by slow magnetic reversals. But it is just what is expected with extremely rapid formation of
new oceanic crust and rapid magnetic reversal during the flood, when rapid cooling of the new crust
occurred in a highly nonuniform manner because of the chaotic interaction with ocean water.
Furthermore, slow-and-gradual subduction should have resulted in the sediments on the floors of the
trenches being compressed, deformed, and thrust-faulted, yet the floors of the Peru-Chile and East
Aleutian Trenches are covered with soft, flat-lying sediments devoid of compressional structures. These
observations are consistent, however, with extremely rapid subduction during the Flood, followed by
extremely slow plate velocities as the floodwaters retreated from the continents and filled the trenches
with sediment.
If uniformitarian assumptions are discarded, however, and Snider’s original biblical proposal for
continental “sprint” during the Genesis Flood is adopted, then a catastrophic plate tectonics model
explains everything that slow-and-gradual plate tectonics does, plus most everything it can’t explain. Also,
516
a 3-D supercomputer model of processes in the earth’s mantle has demonstrated that tectonic plate
movements can indeed be rapid and catastrophic when a realistic deformation model for mantle rocks is
included. And, even though it was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate
tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best.
The catastrophic plate tectonics model of Austin begins with a pre-Flood supercontinent surrounded by
cold ocean-floor rocks that were denser than the warm mantle rock beneath. To initiate motion in the
model, some sudden trigger “cracks” the ocean floors adjacent to the supercontinental crustal block, so
that zones of cold ocean-floor rock start penetrating vertically into the upper mantle along the edge of
most of the supercontinent.
These vertical segments of ocean-floor rock correspond to the leading edges of oceanic plates. These
vertical zones begin to sink in conveyor-belt fashion into the mantle, dragging the rest of the ocean floor
with them. The sinking slabs of ocean plates produce stresses in the surrounding mantle rock, and these
stresses, in turn, cause the rock to become more deformable and allow the slabs to sink faster. This
process causes the stress levels to increase and the rock to become even weaker. These regions of rock
weakness expand to encompass the entire mantle and result in a catastrophic runaway of the oceanic slabs
to the bottom of the mantle in a matter of a few weeks.
The energy for driving this catastrophe is the gravitational potential energy of the cold, dense rock
overlying the less dense mantle beneath it at the beginning of the event. At its peak, this runaway
instability allows the subduction rates of the plates to reach amazing speeds of feet-per-second. At the
same time the pre-Flood seafloor was being catastrophically subducted into the mantle, the resultant
tensional stress tore apart (rifted) the pre-Flood supercontinent. The key physics responsible for the
runaway instability is the fact that mantle rocks weaken under stress, by factors of a billion or more, for
the sorts of stress levels that can occur in a planet the size of the earth—a behavior verified by many
laboratory experiments over the past forty years.
The rapidly sinking ocean-floor slabs forcibly displace the softer mantle rock into which they are
subducted, which causes large-scale convectional flow throughout the entire mantle. The hot mantle rock
displaced by these subducting slabs wells up elsewhere to complete the flow cycle, and in particular rises
into the seafloor rift zones to form new ocean floor. Reaching the surface of the ocean floor, this hot
mantle material vaporizes huge volumes of ocean water with which it comes into contact to produce a
linear curtain of supersonic steam jets along the entire 43,500 miles (70,000 km) of the seafloor rift zones
stretching around the globe (perhaps the “fountains of the great deep” of Genesis 7:11 and Genesis 8:2).
These supersonic steam jets capture large amounts of liquid water as they “shoot” up through the ocean
above the seafloor where they form. This water is catapulted high above the earth and then falls back to
the surface as intense global rain (“‘and the floodgates of heaven were opened’). The rain persisted for “40
days and nights” (Genesis 7:11—12) until all the pre-Flood ocean floor had been subducted.
This catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Earth's history is able to explain geologic data that slow-
and-gradual plate tectonics over many millions of years cannot. For example, the new rapidly formed
ocean floor would have initially been very hot. Thus, being of lower density than the pre-Flood ocean
floor, it would have risen some 3,300 ft. (1,000 m) higher than its predecessor, causing a dramatic rise in
global sea level. The ocean waters would thus have swept up onto and over the continental land surfaces,
carrying vast quantities of sediments and marine organisms with them to form the thick, fossiliferous
517
sedimentary rock layers we now find blanketing large portions of today’s continents. This laterally
extensive layer-cake sequence of sedimentary rocks is magnificently exposed, for example, in the Grand
Canyon region of the southwestern U.S. Slow-and-gradual plate tectonics simply cannot account for such
thick, laterally extensive sequences of sedimentary strata containing marine fossils over such vast interior
continental areas—areas which are normally well above sea level.
Furthermore, the whole mantle convectional flow resulting from runaway subduction of the cold ocean-
floor slabs would have suddenly cooled the mantle temperature at the core-mantle boundary, thus greatly
accelerating convection in, and heat loss from, the adjacent outer core. This rapid cooling of the surface of
the core would result in rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field.
These magnetic reversals would have been expressed at the earth’s surface and been recorded in the
zebra-shaped magnetic stripes in the new ocean-floor rocks. This magnetization would have been erratic
and locally patchy, laterally as well as at depth, unlike the pattern expected in the slow-and-gradual
version. It was predicted that similar records of “astonishingly rapid” magnetic reversals ought to be
present in thin continental lava flows, and such astonishingly rapid reversals in continental lava flows
were subsequently found.
This catastrophic plate tectonics model thus provides a powerful explanation for how the cold, rigid
crustal plates could have moved thousands of miles over the mantle while the ocean floor subducted. It
predicts relatively little plate movement today because the continental “sprint” rapidly decelerated when
all the pre-Flood ocean floor had been subducted.
Also, we would thus expect the trenches adjacent to the subduction zones today to be filled with
undisturbed late-Flood and post-Flood sediments. The model provides a mechanism for the retreat of the
floodwaters from off the continents into the new ocean basins, when at the close of the Flood, as plate
movements almost stopped, the dominant tectonic forces resulted in vertical earth movements (Psalm
104:8). Plate interactions at plate boundaries during the cataclysm generated mountains, while cooling of
the new ocean floor increased its density, which caused it to sink and thus deepen the new ocean basins to
receive the retreating floodwaters.
Aspects of modeling the phenomenon of runaway behavior in the mantle have been independently
duplicated and verified. The same modeling predicts that since runaway subduction of the cold ocean-
floor slabs occurred only a few thousand years ago during the Flood, those cold slabs would not have had
sufficient time since the catastrophe to be fully “digested” into the surrounding mantle. Evidence for these
relatively cold slabs just above the core-mantle boundary, to which they would have sunk, therefore
should still be evident today, and it is.
Moreover, whether at the current rate of movement—only 4 in (10 cm) per year—the force and energy of
the collision between the Indian-Australian and Eurasian Plates could have been sufficient to push up the
Himalayas (like two cars colliding, each only traveling at .04 in/h [1 mm/h]) is questionable. In contrast,
if the plate movements were measured as feet-per-second, like two cars each traveling at 62 mph (100
km/h), the resulting catastrophic collision would have rapidly buckled rock strata to push up those high
mountains.
518
Is Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Biblical?
The Bible does not directly mention either continental drift or plate tectonics. However, if the continents
were once joined together, as suggested by Genesis 1:9—10, and are now apart, then the only possibility is
continental division and “sprint” during the Flood. Some have suggested this continental division
occurred after the Flood during the days of Peleg when “the earth was divided” (Genesis 10:25). However,
this Hebrew expression can be also translated to mean “lands being divided among peoples,” which,
according to the context, refers to the results of the Tower of Babel judgment. Furthermore, the
destruction at the earth’s surface, where people and animals were then living during such a rapid
continental “sprint,” would have been as utterly devastating as the Flood itself.
Therefore, using catastrophic plate tectonics as a model, mechanism, and framework to describe and
understand the Genesis Flood event is far more reasonable and is also consistent with the Bible. Early
skepticism about the slow-and-gradual plate tectonics model has largely evaporated because it has such
vast explanatory power. When applied to the Flood, however, the catastrophic plate tectonics model not
only explains those elements in a more consistent way, but it also provides a powerful explanation for the
dramatic evidences of massive flooding and catastrophic geologic processes on the continents.
From the late eighteenth century to the present, most scientists, including creationists, rejected the
Genesis Flood to explain the fossil-bearing portion of the geological record because it lacked an adequate
mechanism to produce such a vast amount of geological change in such a short time. Only now are we
beginning to understand at least part of the means God may have used to bring this world-destroying
judgment to pass, including catastrophic plate tectonics.
Conclusion
Many creationist geologists now believe the catastrophic plate tectonics concept is very useful as the best
explanation for how the Flood event occurred within the biblical framework for earth’s history. Even
though the Bible does not specifically mention this concept, it is consistent with the biblical account,
which implies an original supercontinent that broke up during the Flood, with the resultant continents
obviously then having to move rapidly (“sprint”) into their present positions.
This concept is still rather new, and of course radical, but its explanatory power makes it compelling.
Additional work is now being done to further detail this geologic model for the Flood event, especially to
show that it provides a better explanation for the order and distribution of the fossils and strata globally
than the failed slow-and-gradual belief. Of course, future discoveries may require adjustments in our
thinking and understanding, but such is the nature of the human scientific enterprise. In contrast, “the
word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Peter 1:25).
519
CHAPTER TWENTY-
SEVEN
THE FLOOD, THE DARK AGES AND THE ROOTS OF
EVOLUTION
Introduction
Why is it that with a world full of evidence, the story of the flood as found in the Bible is rejected by
some of the brightest minds in the scientific community in general? P’Il give you a you a clue. It has little
to do with the evidence. The Bible gives us an explanation of history that the earth and all the life forms
were created perfect and then it all changed because of sin. If that is true, why are so many scientists fully
opposed to that point of view? The reason has more to do with worldview than it does with data. Leaving
religious perspectives out of it doesn't solve that problem. Bias is not a religious problem, it is a human
problem.
Science is defined as “a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable
explanations and predictions about the universe.” The problem evolution has, is that it is not a testable
explanation. Evolution necessitates that in some way, somehow, something that is not alive could by itself,
create something that is alive. This mysterious event has not been observed anywhere in nature or in the
laboratory and therefore it does not pass the scientific method. Therefore, it cannot be established as a
scientific fact.
All life consists of DNA which is a very complex set of organized information. The reason why natural
processes cannot and will never produce life is because natural processes do not create or organize
information. Organization requires intelligence. And where we see the evidence of organization, we see
the evidence of God. Therefore, the most supreme revelation the study of science and the natural world
can ever grant mankind, is a discovery of the existence of the supernatural.
In-spite of this, the pride of human bias and man's commitment to a Godless worldview still influences
our courts and educational institutions which to this day, mandate by law, evolution be taught as an
infallible fact.
In the present day, people have often asked, “Why is it that scientists seem to become more and more
confident in their commitment to the worldview of evolution? Is it because scientists have got more data?”
No. It really isn't. It is because there is an increase in confidence and an increased commitment to a
worldview which is partly because of the political battles over what is going to be taught in public schools.
When they say that you have to teach evolution, then they are basically saying that every teacher has to be
a liar because they have to proclaim that which is a theory of modern science, when there are better
theories to explain what we see, and these are excluded. If they were to put them both before the students
520
as a matter of comparison and choice, that would be fair. But the way in which it is today belies
comprehension. Modern curriculums don't talk about God in textbooks and articles. God is out of the
picture. But what if God exists? This is no way to find truth.
So that's how a worldview can constrict things. One of the things to be appreciated about the Biblical
worldview that Christians embrace is that it's liberating. We can't say that all reality is only that which we
can see because there's nothing that tells us that that's all to reality. To eliminate bias, a broader approach
is preferred, that which includes God in the possibilities and a look is taken at the scientific data which
tends to point us towards God.
When you say, “Well no. I'm not going to get involved with religion or the Bible because that's not
science,” it shows that you're being unnecessarily restrictive and you are eliminating the possibility of you
investigating that which might be true. But modern science has a certain appeal to the independence of the
human mind and heart. Science is the realm of the human. This is what we've done, this is what we know;
whereas religion, faith and Christianity is the realm of God.
The main impediment to accept the Biblical account of origins is the consequences of accepting it. Now
the problem of bringing God into the discussion, is that it inevitably brings back in the question of moral
accountability. And to say that there's morality in an evolutionary paradigm is to fool yourself. You can't
have a Supreme Being and lower beings without defining that relationship somehow. And intuitively, we
recognize that that's a moral law and we may not look very good examined in that light. Therefore, to
escape the concept of judgment and moral accountability, there is a natural tendency to have the need to
reject the Creator and consequently, things like the story of the Flood and the evidences that are still
visible on the earth. These are things that maybe subconsciously at times, we're pretty happy to find an
alternative explanation. We therefore become comfortable moving away from the idea of moral
accountability.
Eliminating moral accountability meant rewriting the history of the world, and this is exactly what
happened. A new worldview was adopted, in particular, a worldview that did not include the history of
the Flood, thus trying to eliminate God's judgment and therefore any moral accountability. But how could
such a dramatically different worldview catch on? Well, the perfect opportunity arose towards the end of
the dark ages.
The Flood
If we look at the popular culture today, the Flood story is not one that's commonly accepted as literally
true. And so it's easy to look at it and say, “Nobody believes that.” Well, that sort of raises this question,
“What about the last few thousand years?” And the answer is, everybody believed it. In fact, the universal
Flood story has been noted time after time in cultures scattered around the world. Every culture seems to
have the story of a flood in which they all drew some lessons from it. The lessons may vary here and there
but they believed it. Examples are the Epic of Gilgamesh among the Babylonians and the story of Vishnu
and the Great Deluge among the Hindus. So why don't we believe it now?
521
Students and scholars will sometimes ask how science came to the point of view that now denies miracles
and even scientists passionately unwilling to believe in creation. To explain that, you have to go through a
little history.
Our society has been subjected to a whole fabric of intellectual ideas set to undermine the history of the
world, the Flood and the history of creation. From the Flood, the earth itself is a witness showing how its
entire surface had been changed by a water-based catastrophe. This overwhelming evidence can't be
erased or removed. So, in the minds of those that rejected the Flood story, it needed to be reinterpreted.
And this is how it happened.
The Dark Ages and the Roots of Evolution
During the Middle Ages, some factors in the society were very autocratic, dogmatic and persecutive and
this made life very hard for people. And the agencies that were doing this were the government and the
Church (The Roman Catholic Church).
One of the greatest things that man wants to have over fellow men is power. In the Middle Ages, the
church ruled the world. So, during the dark ages in the medieval time period, for 1500 years, you had this
nearly monolithic universal rule of the Catholic Church throughout Europe. One of the arenas of conflict
in the developing new freedom of thought with the existing structures of the Catholic Church over the last
1500 years was the area of science. And the stories are fairly well known of all these scientists from
Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton to Nicolaus Copernicus and Francis Bacon who came into conflict with
the church. Probably Galileo is the one that is most famous. He promoted the heliocentric planetary model
which meant that the Sun was at the center and all the planets were revolving around it. The church didn't
like that for a variety of philosophical reasons. To have the earth at the center was important
philosophically and therefore Galileo's idea wasn't popular. So, he was called up by the inquisition, placed
under house arrest, threatened with serious punishment and possibly death. We use that story now,
unfortunately, many times, to create an unworkable antagonism between Christianity and Science. And
that's not what's ought to be learned from that lesson, because, when we look at the teachings of the
Roman Catholic Church through the dark ages, in many cases, it's not what the Bible says.
The world had been subjected to a very rigid religious thinking and anything that was slightly out of that
tight box was regarded contradictory to truth, God, and the Bible and had to be eradicated by force, by the
inquisition, and by death penalties in most cases. And it came finally to a point in history where the
people were tired of that. They were weary of it and the church was losing its credibility because of the
way they had treated people. The people were tired of the way governments had treated them and this led
to a movement among scholars to move away from authority and from any of these autocratic agencies.
The view of God was one of this wrathful deity who was lurking in the woods waiting for the transgressor
to put a foot wrong. And the kings ruled, not out of love but out of greed, controlled not out of love, but
out of fear, including the church.
In seeing the abusive power that had prevailed over Europe for 1500 years, they utterly rejected the
Catholic Church, which of course, in their minds, meant that they utterly rejected Christianity. So that
gave rise to a more atheistic minded society. And the mindset of man says, “Well, what was this
restrictive force? The restrictive force to any mind expansion was God and therefore, let us get rid of Him.
522
Let us get rid of God so that we can grow intellectually.”” And that's what they did in the French
Revolution. Instead of holding the masses in blind submission to her dogmas, Rome's work resulted in
making them infidels and revolutionists. They regarded her greed and cruelty as the fruit of the Bible and
they would have none of it. Rome had misinterpreted the character of God and now men rejected both the
Bible and its Author. This led to the French Revolution and ultimately, the complete removal of the
church's power that it had maintained over the people for more than a thousand years. In the French
National Assembly, the mob of revolutionaries declared only reason should be worshiped. They revealed
a beautiful woman adorned in blue drapery and proclaimed her the goddess of reason. And they enshrined
the goddess of reason. And reason took the place of faith in God.
They carried this woman on a car to Notre Dame, destroyed the church and preached atheism to the
masses inside the church every week. The French people responded to the many centuries of Roman
Catholic oppression and persecution by establishing a new form of government. Instead of a nation with a
Christian worldview, howbeit, perverted and ruled by the Catholic Church at the time, a Society was
formed with an atheistic worldview, absent of any Christian influence, and this was called “The Age of
Enlightenment.”
They didn't want to have anything else to do with God. They saw that God was tyrannical. People were
forced to believe and so now they sought to remove God from the equation altogether. And that's what
happened in the French Revolution. People moved from a God-centred environment to a reason-based
environment.
Atheism arose tremendously in France. Bibles were burned and destroyed and they called it “The Age of
Enlightenment.” And so we see this idea of enlightenment, totally removing God from the picture. Out of
all the segments of French society, it was the Catholic priests who suffered the highest per Capita
mortality rate. There was a lot of animosity and they took it out on the church. And in most cases that
means they took it out on Christianity.
In an effort to defend science and reason as the new ideals for society, the atheistic endeavor went about
to de-Christianize France in what became known as the “Reign of Terror.” Priests were imprisoned or
executed. Churches and religious monuments were vandalized or destroyed. The word ‘Saint’ was
removed from street signs. The worship of a deity was forbidden. Bibles were burned publicly and the
rallying cry of the French infidels was “crush the wretch,” referring to Christ in the form of His Church.
Christians became the objects of public hatred. Many were shot dead while on their knees in prayer and
their bodies left where they fell at their places of worship. In the forests where Christians gathered, bodies
hung from trees and scattered the ground everywhere. All this was the result of the atheistic movement
called “The Great Enlightenment” and those who thought to dethrone the Catholic Church for its
centuries of torture and bloodshed were now themselves guilty of the same crimes.
The culminating events coming out of the enlightenment and then up to the French Revolution seemed to
indicate the death of Christianity. All these was as Satan would have it. His policy is deception and his
purpose is to bring wretchedness upon men, to deface the workmanship of God, to mar the divine purpose
of love and to thus cause grief in Heaven.
523
Then by his deceptive arts, he leads men to throw the blame on God as if all this misery were the result of
the Creator's plan. When the people found Romanism to be a deception, he urged them to regard all
religion as a cheat and the Bible as a fable.
People were moving away from their confidence in governments and in the church and wanted to think
for themselves and bring out more human freedom. This freedom went in many different directions
including moving away from the belief in God.
The new generation of earth science individuals, most notably Lyell and Darwin came forth in the 1800's.
Charles Lyell was a geologist who for the first time introduced the concept of long periods of time in the
development of geological features and then he wrote, “The Principles of Geology.”
These geological views Lyell espoused in his book became known as_ uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism is the belief that things as they unfold and happen today were no different from what
they were in the past. So if something takes a very long time to develop today, it must have taken a very
long time in the past. Uniformitarianism is the basis for believing in the millions of years of time so
critical to the theory of evolution. The widespread acceptance of the principle behind uniformitarianism
was foretold in the Bible to be one of the prevailing reasons why people at the end of time would deny
both creation and the global Flood.
“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And
saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they
were from the beginning of the creation” 2 Peter 3:3-4.
This is what uniformitarianism teaches, that all things have continued at the same rate since the beginning.
But what if there is a catastrophe? What if you have a storm and all of the material that uniformitarianism
said would eventually disappear after a long time, disappears instantly? This is what we see today.
The view that things have remained the same since the beginning of creation, is a philosophy God warned
would characterize a belief system in the last days, and as the Bible says, this mindset would lead people
to be “willingly ignorant of” the fact that “the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished”
(2 Peter 3:5,6). The prophecy says they will be “willingly ignorant,” meaning they would be unwilling to
consider any evidence for the Flood. This is exactly how Charles Lyell described his own views.
Lyell wrote regarding fossils saying: “we cannot account for their present position by the universal deluge.
I hold in utter abomination, most learned Academicians! Those systems which are built with their
foundation in the air cannot be propped up without a miracle.” Principles of Geology, 1840, Vol.1, 6th
Edition. Pg 65.
As a naturalist, Charles Lyell rejected all miracles as an explanation. But it was not his observations in
science that led him to this conclusion. It was his commitment to his own worldview. He revealed his bias
against the Biblical Flood story when, in a letter, he wrote that these views of geological ages will “free
science from Moses.” Charles Lyell, June 14th, 1803 (Letter to George P. Scrope [Lyell, 1881, 1:268-
271))
524
These ideas were then passed from Charles Lyell, to the young 22 year old seminary student, Charles
Darwin.
When Charles Darwin was commissioned to travel on the Beagle, one of the books he took with him was
Charles Lyell's book on “Principles of Geology.” And here he was reading this information, and he comes
to the Galapagos Islands and he sees finches which were of such a broad variety. So, the idea comes that
obviously these finches must have evolved from a pair that happened to get to the islands and all the
varieties evolved thereafter. And then, these geological ideas fit in, that this must have taken time. And
Lyell's ideas start kicking in. He therefore says, if this variety that I see here developed over time and
change took place by natural selection, then God did not create.
Darwin took the ideas of long ages of time that Lyell applied to geology, and then applied them to
biology. Then he had given biological evolution something it didn't previously have — a scientific
method by which to operate. Darwin came up with this new theory, the idea of natural selection, and that
was kind of the magic bullet of the day. That's what gave plausibility, that now they had found a
mechanism that can account for this change over long periods of time.
Darwin later became close friends with Lyell, and it's been said by some that he was the most influential
person in Darwin's life. Darwin commented on Lyell's view about the Flood and said, “Lyell is most
firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the Deluge far more efficiently by never having said a
word against the Bible, than if he had acted otherwise.” Charles Lyell, October 21, 1873 (Letter to George
H. Darwin)
In the middle of the 19th Century, things started changing. Towards the end of that century, the scientific
community started excluding God from its interpretations. Now God had been expelled from the
explanatory menu of the scientific community.
“God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” Ecclesiastes 7:29.
The theory of evolution has become the foundation of our global society today, and the catastrophic
results of such a belief can be seen everywhere in the denial of moral accountability, the denial of God
and therefore the denial of the Holy Scriptures. But perhaps more than any other belief, evolution has
pushed our society closer to the magnitude of the wickedness that existed in the days of Noah.
“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Genesis 6:5.
Wickedness and evil is how God defined the thoughts of man before the Flood. This is all the more
applicable to us when we consider what the Bible has to say about the thoughts of the wicked. “The
wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.”
Psalms 10:4.
When the Bible says that God is not in all his thoughts, what is really being said is that God is not in any
of his thoughts. The wickedness that was great in the earth in the days of Noah was a Godless society that
did not seek after God or think of Him. With this in mind, we can see a direct fulfilment in Jesus'
prophecy, that as it was in the days of Noah “so shall it also be in the days of the coming of the Son of
”
man.
525
If you believe in evolution, that means you deny the infallibility and the inerrancy of the Scriptures and
ultimately you'll deny the judgment. Just as God saw the wickedness of man in the days of Noah and
destroyed the world with a flood, so will He do the same when Christ comes the second time. It is my
plea dear reader that you choose wisely concerning these matters.
“T call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing
and cursing: therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live.” Deuteronomy 30:19.
526
EPILOGUE
By Elizabeth Bosibori and Edwin Marube
“Tn all that has been studied and chronicled, the author brings forth a clear elaboration of the issue of time
and its history to our present. What if the world in its current economic crisis is just a smoke screen for
something looming ahead that’s large in its sphere and terrible in its occurrence? What if despite race,
nationality, gender, religion et cetera, the world is heading (being driven) to a global issue based on
worship that is to be hidden under a regalia of ‘saving the economy / climate change?’ Do you want to
know The Truth? Have you ever asked yourself what is Truth? How can we ascertain information is true?
“Truth is more than just discoveries in the fields of learning (Science, Mathematics etc.); truth is more
and understood better through discovery but given through revelation. Discovery in this context then
becomes a tool to understand the progressive light that truth reveals. I say this because if truth could only
be arrived at by discovery and not revelation, then it would cease to be greater than the human mind, for it
would mean that by debate and logic only, it could be established. But the fact that the mind of the human
seeker is tasked and taxed to study more to discover truth reveals that it is greater than the student. This
again proves that it can only be contained in the human mind but cannot be limited by it. Therefore, every
branch of learning simply adds clarity to its own spectrums that have been dimmed to the human eye by
error or ignorance. Why should you learn the truth? Because it is only truth that can enlighten and
empower the human mind simultaneously and because truth is the only measure against which error is to
be tested. Truth is found in the Holy Scriptures whereas all discoveries along the lines of science, history,
religious education, philosophy et cetera, give more umph and impetus to the momentum of Truth’s
movement onward, forward and upward. Such discoveries have been excellently chronicled down in this
book.
“The issue of The Bible’s credibility has been put to the weighing scales of human judgment over and
over again especially in our postmodern world. The standard has been ‘higher learning’ against which
Scripture has been measured against. But lo! As archeologists and scientists discover fossils of enormous
past creatures, extinct flora and fauna, and gigantic humans that once existed, many candid thinkers like
Dr. Carl Baugh, Walter T. Brown and Prof. Walter Veith are led to a full conviction that the Bible is
scientifically accurate! Many still cling to logic and ‘science’ and try to divorce them from Scripture. The
result is multitudes becoming disillusioned with religion and science altogether and such swing into the
extreme end of the pendulum of liberalism. Science has proven to have had its source from a place (or
Being) of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence discernible via the operating laws of science. The
author does a stellar job in bringing out the clarity of God’s operations.” — Edwin Marube.
“Today, we can see that the world has gone through many changes. We can not compare the present
world to a period 100 years ago. As we struggle with the origins issue, many people have come up with
explanations of how this world came to existence. Scientists being at the forefront have a quite elaborate
theory. History itself tries to bring light to this matter but the light shone upon us through the Bible is
quite interesting and reliable. These three disciplines (History, Science and the Bible) are actually related
and their encoded puzzle with its stimulating interconnection is decoded by carefully examining the
words of the Scripture. Looking at the origins of the Bible from just thousands of years ago, its
527
chronology matches the history of the World and great evidences all around the globe prove the events
written therein. This book unravels the interdisciplinary interrelationships between history, science and
the Bible and goes deep into the world of science to provide great evidences to prove the validity and
inerrancy of the Bible.” - Elizabeth Bosibori.
528
10.
11.
12.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Co, ed., Plate Tectonics and Geomagnetic Reversals, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco,
California, 1973.
A. Snider, Le Création et ses Mystéres Devoilés, Franck and Dentu, Paris, 1859.
A. Wegener, Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane, 1915.
Albright, William Foxwell. “The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel,” Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 100 (December, 1945), pp. 16-22.
Apocrypha, Old Testament. A collection of Jewish writings inferior to the Old Testament in spiritual
and literary value. They introduce doctrinal concepts based on Jewish tradition rather than on the
inspired record of the Old Testament.
Babylonian Chronicle. A general title applied to the known portions of the military annals of
Babylonian kings, including the portion for C. 747-648 B.C. published under that title in 1887, and
others issued variously since. The latest is Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, 626-556 B.C., edited and
translated by D. J. Wiseman (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1961 [first printed 1956]. 99
pp., 21 plates). It includes texts previously issued; on pp. 1-3 are enumerated the dates, cuneiform
sources, and earlier publications. The new texts furnish hitherto unknown details, also dates for
several Biblical events.
The Babylonian Talmud. [Soncino English translation.] Edited by I. Epstein. 34 vols. London: The
Soncino Press, 1935-48. The Talmud includes the Oral Law, or Mishnah, alternating section by
section with the Gemara, or extended exposition of the Mishnah by comments, additions, and various
interpretations of the rabbis in Babylonia from the 3rd to the 5th century. The tractate Rosh Hashanah
(in the volume Seder Mo‘ed VII) deals with the New Year festival and with certain aspects of the
calendar. Representing later traditions, it does not directly concern the Old Testament calendar.
Bright, John. A History of Israel. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972. Written by a
moderately conservative scholar; it varies on some points from the interpretation of history presented
in this commentary, such as the Exodus date or the time sequence of Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s
ministries.
Burnaby, Sherrard Beaumont. Elements of the Jewish and Muhammadan Calendars. London: George
Bell & Sons, 1901. 554 pp. An extended discussion (pp. 1-364), out of date but containing helpful
information here and there, although much of it pertains to the rabbinical and modern Jewish calendar.
The Cambridge Ancient History. Edited by J. B. Bury, S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock. 12 vols. New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1926-39. Volume 3, The Assyrian Empire, presents in chapters X and XI
(written by R. Campbell Thompson) the history of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, and a discussion of
the influence of Babylon on the ancient world. Volume 4, The Persian Empire and the West, deals
more with Greek history during the Persian wars than with Persia itself.
Cowley, A. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Contains text and translation, with notes, of all
the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine known up to 1923. The double dates on certain of these papyri
(and some of those in the collection published by Kraeling) are of great importance as contemporary
evidence on the dating of several Persian reigns, and on the Jewish calendar.
D.R. Humphreys, Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis Flood; in R.E. Walsh,
C.L. Brooks, and R.S. Crowell, eds., Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Creationism, Vol. 2, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pensylvania, pp. 113-126, 1986.
529
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Dougherty, Raymond Philip. Nabonidus and Belshazzar. A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-
Babylonian Empire. “Yale Oriental Series, Researches, Volume XV.” New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1929. 216 pp.
Driver, G. R. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954. 50 pp.,
and facsimiles. The publication of the Aramaic leather manuscripts from Egypt that shed much light
on the Persian administration of Egypt during the reigns of Artaxerxes I and Darius II.
Finkelstein, Louis, ed. The Jews. 4th ed. New York: Schocken Books, 1970-71. 3 vols. Vol. 1 covers
their history; vol. 2, their religion and culture; vol. 3, their role in civilization. Written by various
scholars.
Garstang, John. The Foundations of Bible History; Joshua, Judges. London: Constable and Constable,
Ltd., 1931. 423 pp. Puts entry into Canaan about 1400. Discussion of Joshua’s conquest of Jericho
has been outmoded by later findings (see entry under Kenyon).
Ghirshman, Roman. Iran. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1954, 1978. A history from the
earliest times to the Islamic conquest.
Horn, Siegfried H. “The Chronology of Hezekiah’s Reign,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, II
(1964), 40-52. A study (with a chronological chart from 751 to 712 B.C.) of the place of Hezekiah’s
reign in the Judah-Israel chronology.
Kenyon, Kathleen M. Digging Up Jericho. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1957. 272 pp. A
preliminary account of the excavations of 1952-56 at Jericho, by the joint expedition of the British
School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and other institutions, under the direction of Kathleen Kenyon. If
the preliminary conclusions of this book are valid, they render Garstang’s conclusions on Jericho
obsolete, leave the subject of the conquest by Joshua where it was before Garstang’s excavations, and
postpone any archeological solution until further findings are in.
Koldewey, Robert.The Excavations at Babylon. Translated by Agnes S. Johns. London: Macmillan
and Co., Limited, 1914. 335 pp. A popularly written but thoroughly reliable account of ancient
Babylon as found by the modern excavator, after almost 15 years of uninterrupted work on the ruins.
Kraeling, Emil G.The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri. New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C.
From the Jewish Colony at Elephantine. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. 319 pp.
Luckenbill, Daniel David. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. 2 vols. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1926-1927. Reprint: Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1969. An English
translation of source documents, including the limmu list, annals, etc., old but still useful.
Noth, Martin. The History of Israel. 2d ed.; New York: Harper and Row, 1960. 479 pp. Written by a
liberal scholar, it differs in many respects from Bright’s views and from those presented in this
commentary, but is today the most widely used work on the history of Israel.
Olmstead, A. T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1948. 576
pp. This history attempts to take into account all evidence that can throw any light on Persian history,
including Greek, Aramaic, Persian, and Babylonian sources.
Parker, Richard A., and Dubberstein, W. H. Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.-A.D. 75. Providence,
R.IL: Brown University Press, 1956. 47 pp. This book reconstructs from source material the
Babylonian chronological system, which was adopted by the Persians and Seleucids. Calendrical
tables at the end make it easy to convert any Babylonian date into its B.C. equivalent with fairly high
accuracy.
530
20.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32;
33.
34.
35.
36.
Poebel, Arno. “The Assyrian King List From Khorsabad,” part 3, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, II
(1943), 56-90. A study of a king list written in 738 B.C. The portion furnishing data for the period of
the overlap with Ptolemy’s Canon is an editorial continuation of the kings compiled from other lists.
Pritchard, James B., editor. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. With
supplement. 3rd ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969. The representative collection
of such documents, translated and annotated by a number of leading scholars. It includes much
historical and literary material from other nations, relating only indirectly to the Old Testament but
throwing light on the cultural and religious setting in which the Old Testament was written. It
supersedes the older collections for the Assyrian annals referring to various kings of Israel and Judah,
and contains the Babylonian King List A, but only a short extract from a limmu list.
Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus). The Almagest. Translated by R. Catesby Taliaferro. “Great Books of
the Western World,” vol. 16: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, pp. vii-xiiv, 1-478. Edited by John
Maynard Hutchins and Mortiner J. Adler. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952. Ptolemy’s
great astronomical work, containing the records of eclipses, etc., that establish the dating, and
containing the canon in Appendix A (Greek text in Ptolemy’s Opera, Halma ed., Paris, 1813).
Rogers, Robert William.A History of Ancient Persia, From Its Earliest Beginnings to the Death of
Alexander the Great. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929. 393 pp.
Rowley, H. H. From Joseph to Joshua. London: Oxford University Press, 1950. 200 pp. Valuable, not
for the author’s critical viewpoint and conclusions, but for the summary of the theories of various
scholars and for the comprehensive footnotes to authorities.
S.E. Nevins and S.A. Austin, Continental drift, plate tectonics, and the Bible; in D.R. Gish and D.H.
Rohrer, eds., Up With Creation! Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, California, 1978, 173-180.
Schiirer, Emil. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. Translated by John
Macpherson, Sophia Taylor, and Peter Christie. 5 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, n.d. Old
(completed in 1897) but scholarly and authoritative. Its Division I (2 vols.) comprises the political
history of Palestine, 175 B.C. to A.D. 135; Division II (3 vols.) deals with the internal condition of
Palestine and the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ, discussing also Jewish Hellenistic
literature and works in Greek, including the OT Apocrypha.
Smith, Sidney. Early History of Assyria to 1000 B.C. London: Chatto & Windus, 1928. 418 pp. A
good survey, though its chronology is out of date, since new discoveries have altered the placement of
many earlier kings. For 1500 B.C. and after—the period chiefly discussed in this article—Smith’s
presentation is acceptable.
Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Rev. ed., Grand Rapids, Mich.:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965. 232 pp. This work by a Seventh-day Adventist
scholar deals with Hebrew chronology for the period of the kings of Judah and Israel, from
Solomon’s death to the fall of Jerusalem. It is significant chiefly for the chronological aspects of the
history of the period.
Ussher, James. The Annals of the World. London: J. Crook and G. Bedell, 1658. 907 pp. The classic
but obsolete Biblical chronology, first published in 1650 in Latin. It introduces interregna to
harmonize the reigns, and bases the B.C. dating on the arbitrary assumption of 1004 B.C. (1000 years
before the birth of Christ) for the completion of Solomon’s Temple. The 480 years are taken literally.
Wiseman, D. J. Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.) The British Museum. London: Trustees
of the British Museum, 1961. 99 pp., plates. A series of tablets long owned by the museum but not
published (except one, in 1923) until 1956, with text, translation, and historical introduction. In
531
recounting the annual military campaigns these chronicles give exact dates for the accession of
Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, and for the capture of Jerusalem and its king (Jehoiachin) in 597;
they also settle the question of the year of Josiah’s death.
532