6/20/22

Apologetics and the Scoffer by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 


Apologetics and the Scoffer

The Bible writers used precious space in Holy Writ to warn the Christian apologist about scoffers and their destructive influence on others, including Christians (2 Peter 3:3; Jude 18). In order to “be ready to give a defense” (1 Peter 3:15), a biblical study of the “scoffer” is warranted. The term occurs most prominently in the Proverbs, one of six books in the Old Testament classified as “wisdom literature,” along with Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Lamentations. In Hebrew usage, a “proverb” (root meaning = “comparison”) is a moralistic pronouncement about everyday life. Proverbs are pithy bits of advice that give insight into existence and reality. Proverbs very practically point people down the pathway to successful living. They cut through the facade and complexities—that we humans so typically conjure up in our lives—by pinpointing how to live a godly life in preparation for eternity.

Rather than being a disconnected hodgepodge of unrelated maxims, Proverbs constitutes a distillation of wisdom gleaned from the Law of God. Wisdom is the general subject matter of the book, but the central theme is stated in 1:7—“the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (cf. 9:10; 15:33). In other words, the starting point for life and the real essence of wisdom is fear of God. True living cannot commence without first a genuine respect for God. A healthy fear of the Lord entails a reverence for God that includes obedience and submission to His will (Job 28:28; Psalm 111:10; Ecclesiastes 12:13). A person’s life cannot even “get off the ground” until a humble respect for God and His will is in place. Once the prerequisite of genuine regard for God is intact, the individual is in a position to hear God and to begin the process of assimilating God’s wisdom as it relates to a variety of life’s characteristics, including pride/humility, wealth/poverty, folly, goodness, use of the tongue, vengeance, strife, gluttony, justice, love, lust, laziness, death, friends, and the family.

A SCOFFING SOCIETY

The last half-century in America has brought sweeping cultural changes. Many of the values and beliefs of our civilization have been jettisoned or significantly altered. As one example, consider the fact that society in general is less respectful, less serious, and less self-controlled. More people tend to be flippant and irreverent. Paul spoke of the importance of being sober-minded, serious, and reverent (Titus 1:2-8). It’s as if the further our nation moves away from God and His moral precepts, the more reckless, undisciplined, uncontrolled, and irreverent people become. Eventually, nothing is sacred or worthy of respectful, cautious, careful handling.

Such is the case with the “scoffer” of Proverbs. Various forms of the term (verb, participle, noun) occur some 18 times in the book. Depending on the translation, the noun form is generally translated “scorner” (KJV), “scoffer” (NKJV, ASV, NASB, RSV), or “mocker” (NIV). In identifying the meaning of the underlying Hebrew terms, the language authorities speak of “chatterers,” “overbearing tittle-tattle,” “arrogant men,” “rebels,” “to brag, speak boastfully,” “to put on airs,” “to scoff, deride,” “to encourage scorn.”1 They also speak of ridicule, scorn, and mockery, make fun of, in association with arrogance, wickedness, licentiousness, and folly.2 Our English dictionaries define “scorn” as “contempt or disdain felt toward a person or object considered despicable or unworthy; to reject or refuse with derision.” “Scoff” is defined as “to mock at or treat with derision or scorn.” “Mock” means “to treat with ridicule or contempt; deride, jeer.” A good summary description of the “scoffer” is seen in the comment by the classic Hebrew lexicographer William Gesenius: “a frivolous and impudent person, who despises scoffingly the most sacred precepts of religion, piety, and morals.”3

Characteristics of the Scoffer

Solomon had much to say about this prideful, stubborn approach to life. Proverbs 1:20-22 (NASB) reads:

Wisdom shouts in the street, she lifts her voice in the square;
At the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
At the entrance of the gates in the city she utters her sayings:
“How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded?
And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing and fools hate knowledge?”

The scoffer is in the same class with fools and the naïve—those disinterested in acquiring the wisdom and knowledge that can only come from God. A “fool” in Proverbs is not someone who is mentally handicapped; it is the person who is morally deficient because he or she rejects the approach to life advocated by God. Proverbs 9:7-8 reads:

He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself,
And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself.
Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you,
Reprove a wise man and he will love you.

Observe that Solomon meant that if you impart correction and reproof to someone with a prideful attitude, you are wasting your time, “casting your pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6), and will receive only abuse, hate, and resentment in return. We so often feel like it is our duty and mission in life to correct everyone around us. This passage teaches that we need to be more judicious and discriminating regarding when to “weigh in” on a matter that arises in another person’s life. We literally must make an assessment of such a person before we offer advice (Proverbs 26:4-5).4 That assessment would have to be based on “fruit” (Matthew 7:20).

Proverbs 9:12 states: “If you are wise, you are wise for yourself, and if you scoff, you alone will bear it.” In other words, by embracing and inculcating wisdom into your life, you will receive its benefits and be rewarded. On the other hand, if you scoff at wisdom and refuse to apply God’s insight to your circumstances, you will hurt yourself by being your own worst enemy. Past generations captured this concept well in the reference to those who would “cut off their nose to spite their face.”

Proverbs 14:6 says: “A scoffer seeks wisdom and does not find it, but knowledge is easy to him who understands.” By “seeking wisdom,” Solomon means that a scoffer’s pursuit of proper thinking and insight is a useless enterprise, since he is not actually interested in finding it. For him, the pursuit of wisdom is a vain exercise. But if our heart and attitude is right, and we are sincerely and sensibly seeking God’s perspective, we will find it. When Festus accused Paul of being driven insane by learning, Paul responded: “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25). Spiritual insight and the wherewithal to function effectively in this life is available to those who sincerely, genuinely desire it. As Jesus explained: “If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine” (John 7:17).

Proverbs 15:12 informs us: “A scoffer does not love one who corrects him, nor will he go to the wise.” Again, the scoffer resents constructive criticism and helpful input that would make life go better for him and spiritually prepare him for eternity. His complete lack of interest in spiritual things, and his prideful, self-absorbed attitude means that he refuses to enlist the aid of those who could help him, those who have already “been around the block.”

Rearing a Scoffer

From whence come scoffers? How do they arise? How does a person become a scoffer? Proverbs addresses these questions as well. Proverbs 13:1 reads: “A wise son heeds his father’s instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke.” The very nature and attitude of a scoffer means that he will not listen to sage counsel from parents and others who would help him. It also means that he will not receive the benefits to be gained from being disciplined—either orally or physically. That is one reason why parents must start young in the administration of corporal punishment: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (Proverbs 22:15). One of the ways to head off having a scoffer for a son or daughter is to address the scoffing attitude early on. Spanking must have as its end to alter attitude. If the application of physical pain to the posterior does not alter the attitude, perhaps you did not get the job done and more diligence is needed.

Proverbs 17:21 says: “He who begets a scoffer does so to his sorrow, and the father of a fool has no joy.” Observe that “scoffer” is put in parallel construction with “fool,” showing the close connection between the two. Proverbs has much to say about parenting. Sometimes the unwillingness of the scoffer to listen to advice and to heed wise counsel is an indication that his parents did not get the job done early on. Parents must make a child listen to them. That’s not something that comes naturally for a child. A child must be made to show respect and to be attentive to parental guidance. Children are self-absorbed and consumed in their little world, so they must be brought to reality by parents who insist/demand that the child stop his preoccupation with trivialities, look the parent in the face, and pay attention to the parent’s instructions. Such respect and honor must be taught and demanded. Proverbs also has much to say about the fact that bringing a child under control in order to instill respect for authority and receptivity to wisdom takes corporal punishment (13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15,17). When such is done early in the child’s life, depending on the child, it will be needed rarely as time goes by.

On the other hand, when that aspect of childrearing is neglected or omitted, the adult that results is in need of firmer measures than mere verbal rebuke: “Strike a scoffer, and the simple will become wary; Rebuke one who has understanding, and he will discern knowledge” (Proverbs 19:25). Notice that there are people in society who will not be corrected by mere oral admonition. God Himself declares that physical punishment is necessary and appropriate. Yet, our society has degenerated so far from God that they would declare such punishment as “cruel and inhumane.” Remember that Eli’s own two sons—who were not mere boys—were in need of more than the verbal reprimands their father gave them (1 Samuel 2:23-25). They were in need of physical intervention and restraint (1 Samuel 3:13). Corporal and capital punishment were authored by God (Genesis 9:6; Proverbs 13:24; Romans 13:4).

Adult Criminal Behavior

Observe also the effect that the punishment of lawless people has on others in society: “Strike a scoffer, and the simple will become wary” (Proverbs 19:25). It is a fact that punishment of the lawbreaker is a deterrent to the spread of criminal behavior. God stated that principle repeatedly in the Old Testament, and even repeated it in the New (Deuteronomy 13:11; 17:13; 21:21; Acts 5:11; 1 Timothy 5:20). The Bible teaches the corollary of this principle as well. Where there is inadequate, insufficient, or delayed punishment, crime and violence increase. As Solomon stated in Ecclesiastes 8:11—“Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” This very phenomenon is occurring even now in our country—and even in the Church. The concept is repeated in Proverbs 21:11—“When the scoffer is punished, the simple is made wise; but when the wise is instructed, he receives knowledge.” Proverbs 19:29 reads: “Judgments are prepared for scoffers, and beatings for the backs of fools.” Question: Based on such declarations, does God want scoffers punished? To ask is to answer.

Yet, our criminal justice system, beginning in the 1960s, has been turned away from the original intent of the Founders. The architects of American jurisprudence sought to emulate Bible principles and inculcate into our laws the thinking of God. But in recent years, the entire system has shifted from concern for the rights of the victim to the rights of the criminal. Our prisons are full to overflowing, and lawlessness continues to increase. The godly concept of justice has fallen on hard times. As if describing our own society, Proverb 19:28 declares, “A disreputable witness scorns justice.” “Scorns” is the verb form of the word for scoffer. Those who are either lawbreakers themselves or who “approve of those” (Romans 1:32) who are, scoff at justice. Proverbs 14:9 adds: “Fools mock at sin.” That is precisely why John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Vice-President under George Washington, and Second President of the United States, declared on October 11, 1798—“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”5 The greater the numbers of Americans who scoff at justice and Christian morality, the more inevitable will be our national doom.

The Heart of the Scoffer & How to Handle It

Proverbs 21:24 pinpoints the central malady of the scoffer: “A proud and haughty man—‘Scoffer’ is his name; he acts with arrogant pride.” Here is the perennial problem of us all: pride. It reared its ugly head in the Garden, and it threatens us now. The scoffer is inherently prideful. The bottom line, taproot cause of all departure from God’s will is human pride. Pride is the attribute of thinking highly of self (Romans 12:3). Pride is self-centeredness. It is approaching life from the perspective of personal desire—what do Iwant? What will make me happy? What will bolster my status? What will enhance my circumstances? No wonder John summarized the nature of worldliness in terms of the three avenues through which Satan seeks to subvert people: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16). Even the lust of the flesh and eyes are actually further manifestations of pride. When our flesh and our eyes desire something which we should not have, the motivation behind the fleshly lust is the desire to enhance self. Selfishness is the essence of pride. The scoffer is eaten up by it.

Proverbs 22:10 gives additional advice on how to deal with the scoffer: “Cast out the scoffer, and contention will leave; yes, strife and reproach will cease.” Let’s get direct and practical on this one. What are the elders to do with a member of the church who stirs up trouble by mocking authority, righteousness, or serious matters? What should be done when a member badmouths the elders behind their backs, and undermines their authority because of a decision they’ve made? Solomon said: “Cast him out.” Paul agreed with Solomon. He told the church at Corinth regarding an impenitent fornicator: “[W]hen you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan…. [P]urge out the old leaven…. Therefore ‘put away from yourselves the evil person’” (1 Corinthians 5:4-5,7,13).

So very much heartache, division, and confusion has been generated in the Church over the years simply because those causing division were not handled promptly and biblically. We have not taken God’s words seriously. We’ve lacked the faith and zeal to step up to the plate and act. We do not share God’s sentiments when He says: “The devising of foolishness is sin, and the scoffer is an abomination to men” (Proverbs 24:9). We have allowed the body of Christ to be torn asunder, because we did not listen to our God when He warned us that “Scoffers set a city aflame, but wise men turn away wrath” (Proverbs 29:8).

Who Are the Scoffers Today?

Who in our day fits the description of the scoffer from the book of Proverbs? First on the list would surely be many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and evolutionists. The world population stats show that over one billion people on the planet claim no affiliation with religion in any form. They scoff at the idea of God and those who follow Him. They believe that the Universe and life on Earth came about solely through naturalistic processes without any divine intelligence. They scoff at anyone who thinks otherwise. They believe that only the physical Universe exists with nothing metaphysical—beyond the physical. In this category would be many of the radical animal rights people and environmentalists who think that animals are people and that it’s up to humans to save the planet. The Bible assessment of such individuals is simple: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1).

Observe that the Christian apologist who defends the existence of God and the inspiration of the Bible must be prepared to recognize and cope with what it feels like to be scoffed at. For example, legion are those today who scoff at the historicity of the Noahic Flood—though the geological evidence for such a catastrophic deluge is worldwide.6 The strategy of the scoffer is to make the recipient of his scoffing to feel pressure to give up his view and accept the thinking of the scoffer. The victim is made to feel that the scoffer possesses knowledge that the victim is not privy to; the scoffer’s condescending jab creates an air of authority designed to intimidate and bully the believer into submission and gather other followers from among his audience. The approach is effective and explains why Scripture warns about scoffers so often and how to handle them. No wonder Peter explained:

 …knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to 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 creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men (2 Peter 3:3-7).

Modern uniformitarian “geology” was developed by scoffers as a direct counter to biblical catastrophism and the Flood. The Christian must not capitulate to such deceitful tactics. The truth outweighs the counterfeit confidence of the scoffer.

Who else qualifies as a scoffer? Those people and organizations that seek to undermine the American way of life often merit the label when they mock and belittle those individuals who seek to uphold it. By “American way of life,” I mean the Christian moral principles on which the nation was founded. Organizations such as the ACLU, AUSCS, FFR, BLM, Antifa, and LGBTQ groups are feverishly attempting to silence God in our society by systematically expunging all references to God, Christ, and the Bible from our schools, our government, and public life. In close proximity to these groups are those liberal politicians who also have made it clear that they share the same anti-Christian views.7

Two premiere, politicized moral issues, that have become prominently championed by liberal politicians, liberal media, the educational system, Hollywood, and beyond, are abortion (which includes embryonic stem-cell research) and homosexuality (which has expanded to include transgenderism). Since the 1960s, the Feminist Movement and other subversive forces, have scoffed at the traditional American values that made our nation great. They have demeaned and ridiculed the home and family as God intended. They have celebrated sexual promiscuity and demanded the right to destroy unborn babies—to the tune of more than 63 million since 1973.8 Their lust for sexual license has led to the widespread acceptance of homosexuality—a catastrophic issue in the culture war that is raging across the country.9 The decline of sexual sensibility has sparked cries for the acceptance of polygamy and other forms of sexual deviancy. All such people are scoffers who scoff at God and His plan for the home—the basic building block of humanity. The faithful must not flinch in the face of such forceful coercion.

CONCLUSION

A fitting conclusion to this brief consideration of the scoffer is found in Proverbs 3:33-35. Ironically, the Lord Himself will heap back upon the scoffer his own scoffing, even as He will bring judgment on the scoffer in the end:

The curse of the LORD is on the house of the wicked,
But He blesses the home of the just.
Surely He scorns the scornful,
But gives grace to the humble.
The wise shall inherit glory,
But shame shall be the legacy of fools (Proverbs 19:29).

 ENDNOTES

1 L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, M.E.J. Richardson, & J.J. Stamm (1994-2000), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, electronic ed.), pp. 529,533-534.

2 William Gesenius (1847), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint), pp. 435,440; William Holladay (1988), A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 176.

3 Ibid., p. 435.

4 Jeff Miller (2017), “Jesus Gave Him No Answer,” Reason & Revelation, 37[10]:112-113, 116;  Eric Lyons (2004), “He Opened Not His Mouth,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1437.

5 John Adams (1854), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company), 9:229.

6 Jeff Miller (2019), “Was the Flood Global? Testimony from Scripture and Science,” Reason & Revelation,39[4]:38-41,44-47.

7 History demonstrates that socialism, communism, and Marxism have shown themselves to be antithetical to Christianity.

8 http://www.numberofabortions.com/.

9 See Jeff Miller and Dave Miller (2021), Homosexuality: Scripture, Society, Science, and Psychology (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).


Published

THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD By Dub McClish

 

https://www.blogger.com/u/0/blog/post/edit/4915597720914219123/1536694107371854891

THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD

By Dub McClish

 

Introduction

From the ending of Old Testament history and prophecy to the opening words of Matthew’s Gospel account in the New Testament spans about four centuries. Historians have described this period by various terms besides those in the title of this article. It is depicted as “the four hundred silent years,” “the period of silence,” “the interval between the Old and New Testaments,” “interbiblical history,” “from Malachi to Christ,” and likely others.

The period is referred to as a period of silence, not because no one was speaking or nothing significant was occurring in world history. Quite the contrary, earth-changing events occurred in this interval—events that greatly affected Israel, God’s covenant people.

Circumstances and developments of this era served as providential preparation for the insertion of the Incarnate Word into the stream of human history. Some of the institutions that appear in the four Gospel records arose during this period. This span simply represents an information gap as far as inspiration is concerned.

With the books of Nehemiah and Malachi, completed (cir. 432 B.C.), the inspired pen of the historians, the voice of the prophets, and miraculous activity were inoperative. They did not resume until Gabriel’s announcement to Zacharias of the coming of John, the Lord’s forerunner (Luke 1:13–19). Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, was born only a few months after His cousin, John, becoming the central figure of all history. Hence, thereafter, time is reckoned as beginning with A.D. 1, from which dating system we derive the four centuries between the Testaments.1

The Bible does not satisfy the human curiosity that naturally seeks a cause for this silence of inspiration and miraculous activity. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the silence occurred because God, at that time, had said all He needed to say and all that men needed to hear until “the fullness of the time came” for Him to send forth His Son (Gal. 4:4). Perhaps God needed to say no more because of the numerous details he revealed to Daniel in advance and that the prophet preserved for us in the book that bears his name.

In the sixth-century before Christ, God, through Daniel, the statesman-prophet of the Exile, revealed the geo-political outline that would (and did) characterize the period between the Testaments more than a century before the time of Nehemiah and Malachi. Daniel’s inspired interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream (chap. 2) applied the respective parts of the dream’s colossal image to four great world empires stretching from the sixth to the end of the first century B.C. The interpretation foretold that Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon would be subdued by the Persian Empire.2 In turn, Alexander’s Grecian Empire would conquer Persia, and finally, he foresaw the rise of Rome (vv. 7–43). During this last empire, God would establish His kingdom, which would subdue all others and have no end (v. 44; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12–14; Luke 1:31–33).3

God commissioned Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 25:8–11; cf. Deu. 28:48–50; Isa. 39:7) to conquer Judah and take her to Babylon. Likewise, two centuries in advance, He called Cyrus the Persian by name and raised him up to subdue Babylon, to allow the Jews to return to Judea, and to rebuild the temple and the city of Jerusalem (2 Chr. 36:22–23; Isa. 44:28–45:1–5; Jer. 25:12; 29:10; cf. Ezra 6:3–5).

Two centuries before it would occur, Daniel specified repeatedly that the Greek empire of Alexander the Great (specifying Greece by name, no less) would conquer Persia and much more (Dan. 2:39; 7:6; 8:3–8, 20–21; 10:20). Per Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, as noted above, the empire seated on the Tiber in Italy would eventually conquer and/or absorb the geographical remnants of Alexander’s vast domain. There is no Biblical evidence that God directly exalted Alexander to make his sweeping conquests or the Roman emperors to rise to power, as in the cases of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus. However, as we shall subsequently observe, it is difficult to discount God’s providence at work in both cases.

Besides Daniel’s broad vista of the successive empires in chapter 2 of his prophecy, he provides much greater detail relating to the empire and influence of Alexander and his successors in chapter 8. In a vision, he saw the figure of a ram with two horns, one of which was higher than the other, and the ram pushed in every direction (vv. 3–4). Then he saw a “he- goat” with a “notable horn” that came from the west, attacking the ram furiously, smiting him, and breaking his two horns (vv. 5–7). However, at the apex of his strength, the horn of the mighty he-goat was broken, and in its place arose four “notable horns” (vv. 8). Moreover, out of one of the four came a “little horn” that came to have great power and that opposed God’s people in “the glorious land” (vv. 9–12). After a long period (2,300 days), the sanctuary this ruler had trodden under foot would be cleansed, signaling the end of the oppression (vv. 13–14).

The angel Gabriel was ordered to “make him understand the vision” (v. 16). Gabriel explained to Daniel: the ram with two horns was the Medo-Persian empire (v. 20). The one- horned he-goat was the Greek empire and the “notable horn” was its first king (i.e., Alexander) (v. 21). Alexander died at 33 years (323 B.C.), leaving no declared successor, so the four horns (v. 22) foretell the four-way division of his empire. Another powerful “horn” (ruler), a “destroyer” of “the holy people,” was to arise from one of the four (vv. 23–25).

Daniel’s inspired prophetic panorama of the 400-year “inspiration gap” will help to organize our study of this era, as follows:

·      Two Centuries under the Persians,

·      Power and Influence of the Greeks and Hellenism,

·      Jewish Independence—The Maccabean Era,

·      The Jews Under Rome,

·      Miscellaneous Notable Developments of the Period.

Now let us turn our attention to world events that transpired between the Testaments, particularly in terms of their impact on the people of God.

 

Two Centuries Under the Persians

 

A Century Recorded by Inspiration (536–432 B.C.)

The books of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi furnish the record of the first one hundred years of the Jews under Persian rule. Under Cyrus, Persia conquered the Babylonian Empire in 536 B.C. He and his successors generally proved to be benevolent dictators, as the Old Testament books referenced above indicate. We see this attitude not only in the decree of Cyrus, but also in the great esteem in which “Darius the Mede,” the city of Babylon’s Persian ruler, held Daniel (Dan. 6:3, 14–15; 18–20), in which Ahasuerus (Xerxes) later held Esther, Mordecai, and all the Jews (Est. 2:15–23; 5:1–8; 6:1–10; 7:1–10:3), and in which Artaxerxes still later held Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 7:1–26; Neh. 2:1–8; 13:6–7).

Cyrus immediately issued an unprecedented decree that the Jews were to be allowed to return to their homeland, as B.S. Dean notes: “This return of a captive nation is a unique fact; there is nothing like it in history” (98). Cyrus further ordered that the temple the Babylonians razed fifty years earlier was to be rebuilt with his personal funds (Ezra 1:1–4; 6:3–5).

So after seventy years from the first deportation of the Jewish captives to Babylon (606–536 B.C.), as Jeremiah had promised, those who chose to do so were allowed to make their way back home. Some (e.g., Daniel, Mordecai, Esther, et al.) elected to remain permanently in the land of their captivity where they had prospered. Some (e.g. Ezra and Nehemiah) delayed their return by several years. Three waves of return matched the three waves of deportation under Nebuchadnezzar. The first was under Zerubbabel, who led in beginning the rebuilding of the temple (536 B.C. - Ezra 1–6). Ezra led the second contingency (458 B.C. - Ezra 7:10).

Nehemiah conducted the third group and distinguished himself by leading the work of completing the rebuilding of the city walls and calling the people to repentance (445 B.C. - Neh. 1–13).4 The Jews were allowed to observe their traditions, practice their religion, and even govern themselves to a degree. While the Persian monarchs did not interfere with the resumption of life in their homeland, Samaritans—remnants of the Ten Tribes who had intermarried with those imported by the Assyrians, following their conquest in 722 B.C.—continually harassed and opposed the rebuilding efforts.

 

A Century Not Recorded by Inspiration (432–331 B.C.)

With the close of the inspired record in the books written by Nehemiah and Malachi, students of this final century of Persian rule must turn to uninspired history sources of the time. (The only inspired “history” of these years and those that take us to the appearance of John and Jesus is that of Daniel, written in advance of its occurring, as earlier noted.) These consist chiefly of the works of the pro-Roman Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, (A.D. 37–c. 100), some of the apocryphal books (particularly I Maccabees), Greek and Roman historians, and various archaeological sources (e.g., inscriptions, monuments, etc.).

The Samaritans continued to be a thorn in the side of the Jews in Judea, until they finally broke with them altogether. In Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman, she said “our fathers worshipped in this mount,” referring to the Samaritan temple on nearby Mt. Gerizim (John 4:20). This temple was built in about 400 B.C. by Manasseh, a Jewish priest who had been cut off from the Jerusalem priesthood because he married the daughter of Sanballat, the Samaritan chieftain who strongly opposed Nehemiah’s effort to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls (Neh. 4:7; 6:2; 13:28). When, upon his expulsion, he fled to Samaria, Sanballat appointed him High Priest in the new temple. “Here a rival cult was established to that in Jerusalem…based on the same law-book as that recognized by the Jews” (Bruce 115). The Jews of Jesus’ day may have despised the Samaritans as much for their having a mongrel temple and religion within twenty miles of Jerusalem as for their mongrel race.

For the most part, the Jews living in the post-Biblical period of the Persian Empire were allowed to live their lives without interference by imperial policy, both in their homeland and in the various areas of the empire where they chose to live. “Naturally they were not free, but so long as they recognized the supremacy of Persia and observed the laws governing them they were not molested or abused” (Hester 316). Judea was part of the province of Syria in the Persian Empire, and “Under the Persians, the Jews were usually governed by their own High Priest, subject to the Syrian Satrap, or Governor” (Dean 103).

 

The Power and Influence of the Greeks and Hellenism

In the middle part of the fourth century B.C., while the power of the Persian Empire was waning because of challenges from within and without, and from lack of forceful leadership, a new power was rising in the West. King Philip of Macedon had mastered the city-states of Greece and Thrace, and intended to move against Persia (which had been attacking this area for half a century). When he was assassinated in 336 B.C., his son, Alexander, succeeded him at the age of 20 years, bent on carrying out his father’s plan.

 

Alexander’s Military and Cultural Conquests (333–323 B.C.)

Only two years after ascending the Greco-Macedonian throne, Alexander crossed the Hellespont into Asia Minor (modern Turkey), beginning his astonishingly successful and rapid triumph over the once invincible Empire of Persia. He showed himself to be every bit the “notable horn” of the mighty “he-goat” from the west that Daniel saw in his prophetic vision two centuries before (8:5–7, 21). With his defeat of Darius III at Issus in 333, Syria, which included the homeland of the Jews, was his. He then turned southward to Egypt, which brought him through Palestine. Josephus tells that Jaddua, the High Priest, led a procession to meet him, which mightily impressed the young warrior-king (244). The New Analytical Bible reports: “His favorable treatment of the Jews has been accounted for on the supposition that his attention was called to the predictions of Daniel that two hundred years before set forth his brilliant conquests” (1079).

In 331, while in Egypt (which accepted Alexander as a deliverer from the hated Persians), he founded his famous namesake city, Alexandria. He then retraced his steps through Syria, marching on eastward, where he met and routed the Persian army east of the Tigris River at Gaugamela. This battle in October of 331 was the final nail in the coffin of the once mighty Persian Empire. Alexander expanded his empire greatly with thrusts farther eastward, but died in 323 in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II in Babylon. He may be the only general in history who never lost a military battle, but who nonetheless lost the battle of life through reputed uncontrolled vice and self-indulgence.

Alexander’s ambitions extended beyond military conquest and rule:

As Alexander swept across the areas of his conquest an impact greater than the sword alone can produce, was eventually to obtain. This potent force was “…a body of ideas” that was in fact a culture unparalleled in history. This refined Grecian culture, best known as Hellenism, came to be the chief contribution of Alexander’s meteoric career. Its impress upon the world through language, literature, philosophy, science, and art has practically determined the course of subsequent history, especially in the West, but to a degree even in the East. The Jews were not immune (McClish 2).

One writer calls Alexander “the apostle of Hellenism” (Pfeiffer 67). On the heels of his victories, Alexander founded cities and settled them with Greeks. He also colonized existing cities with them. Thus he extended the Greek culture and language throughout his domain. One scholar assigns the first Palestinian colonization as early as 332 in Samaria (Bickerman 41). As the Hellenistic influence diffused, it was with growing difficulty that the small province of Judea could totally resist it. The principal vehicle upon which Hellenism rode was the Greek language. How could the Jews engage the Gentiles in commerce without learning the language? As we shall see, the Greek influence would play a major role in Jewish political events in the second century B.C.

 

The Jews Under the Post-Alexander Empire (323–167 B.C.)

Alexander died with no provision for a successor. The power struggle initially involved various generals, satraps, and family members (the “diadochi”). After numerous wars (and some assassinations), most of his empire was divided between four of his generals, represented by the four horns of Daniel 8:22, but the struggles for their respective territories were not completed until 301 B.C. While little is known of the Jews’ history in this uncertain time, Hester says that during the “twenty-five years after Alexander’s death Jerusalem changed hands seven times” (321). Only two of these successors directly affected the Jews: Ptolemy I (Lagi) gained control of Egypt and southern Syria, and Seleucus initially ended up with Babylon and northern Syria.

Palestine was the sandwich filling between these two monarchs and their dynasties for the next century. The Ptolemy and the Seleucid dynasties warred frequently for the coveted land of the Jews, rarely with a definitive victor, although the Ptolemies maintained control over it. The Jews paid tribute to Egypt, and they were allowed to govern themselves through their High Priests.

Ptolemy I imported thousands of Jews to Egypt where some were placed in military service, while most of them were settled in Alexandria, which the Ptolemies made their seat of government. They built the city into one of such prominence that it was larger than Rome and was second in prominence only to Rome at its zenith of power, size, and wealth.5 It became the home of the largest concentration of Jews in the world, many of them great scholars, during the Ptolemaic era. The Jews there gradually gave up their Hebrew tongue in favor of the predominant Greek. This circumstance led to the famous and valuable translation of the Old Testament into the Greek language—the Septuagint (LXX, the Roman numeral 70, for the traditional number of translators)—during the reign of Ptolemy II, who ruled from 285–246 B.C. Hester summed up the significance of this translation:

This was a most significant event since, with this translation available, every person who spoke Greek could read the scriptures. It made the Old Testament with all its predictions of a Messiah available to hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise might never have had the opportunity of reading the Jewish scriptures (320).

The issue between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids was finally settled in 198 B.C. when the Seleucid king, Antiochus III (“The Great”) soundly defeated Ptolemy V, taking undisputed control of Palestine. The Jews would have to deal with the Seleucids for the next 135 years.

Antiochus divided the land into the five provinces, familiar to New Testament students: Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Trachonitis, and Perea.

Antiochus IV (“Epiphanes”) ascended the Seleucid throne in place of his assassinated brother, Seleucus IV, in 175. He was a passionate evangelist for Hellenism, which was having its affect by association upon many of the Jews, particularly those dispersed throughout Syria. He set about to enforce this way of life on all of his subjects—including those in Palestine. His cultural zeal and insane cruelty would lead to one of the darkest periods of Jewish history short of Hitler’s Holocaust of the twentieth century. It would also lead to the last period of Jewish independence.

As Hellenism progressed in Judea, an element of the Jews became alarmed. In defense of strict adherence to the Law and to halt the Hellenistic inroads, the “Hasidim” (i.e., “the pious ones”) party appeared. It opposed the liberal element that welcomed all things Greek, which element had become strong by the time the Seleucids gained control of the Jewish homeland. In 170, Jason, an extreme Hellenistic Jew, led 1,000 men against Jerusalem to take the office of High Priest by force. Antiochus supposed this trouble represented a full revolt by the Jews against him, consequently:

He turned his troops loose on a city already bathed in blood by Jason’s treachery, and ordered a massacre, irrespective of age or sex. The Temple was plundered with the assistance of Menelaus (the reigning High Priest, an unauthorized Benjamite), and its remaining treasures were carried away to Antioch (McClish 10).

The book of I Maccabees states that he slaughtered 40,000 in this stunning and outrageous attack. The Jewish depopulation was replaced by the importation of Hellenistic colonists.

However, this brief assault was only a prelude to the one Antiochus launched only two years later. In 168, he returned from an unsuccessful attempt to topple the Ptolemy regime in Egypt where he was rebuffed when Rome came to Egypt’s aid. He vented his anger this time by launching an extended war of extermination, not against the Jews themselves, but against their religion, seeing in it the source of a growing anti-Syrianism.

He began his pogrom by sending an army of 22,000 against Jerusalem, waiting to fall upon the city until the Sabbath, knowing the Jews would not defend themselves on their holy day. They burned Jerusalem, forbade observing the feast days and offering the sacrifices, erected an altar to Zeus on the great altar, and, on December 25, 168, sacrificed a sow upon it, thus fulfilling Daniel’s prophecy of four centuries earlier: “And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt-offering, and they shall set up the abomination that maketh desolate” (Dan. 11:31). (The Lord later quoted Daniel to describe the blasphemies the Romans would visit upon the temple in A.D. 70 [Mat. 24:15].) Thus began the crusade that made it a capital offense to circumcise their baby boys, to possess a copy of the law, to observe the Sabbath, and to refuse to eat pork or animal flesh offered to pagan deities. His proscription of Judaism led to the merciless slaughter of additional thousands, with many women and children sold into slavery.

 

Jewish Independence—The Maccabean Revolt

Antiochus underestimated the depth and breadth of loyalty the Jews had to their Law. The repeated bloody atrocities, the plundering and desecration of the temple, followed by the force of new laws intended to destroy all that gave the Jews their identity inflamed many. The Hasidim, formed a century earlier to stem Hellenistic apostasy, found many now joining cause with them either in fact or at least in will. All the resistance needed was leadership.

 

The Origin of the Revolt

The spark that ignited the Jews to revolt occurred in Modein, a little town twenty miles northwest of Jerusalem. In 167 B.C., Apelles, a Syrian officer, came to the town to compel heathen sacrifice. When an apostate Jew stepped forward to comply, one Mattathias sprang from the bystanders and slew both the Jew and Apelles, and pulled down the heathen altar. Consequently, running through the town, he cried, “Everyone that hath a zeal for the law, and maintaineth the testament, let him follow me.” Upon this he fled to the mountains with his five sons, leaving all possessions behind (McClish 13).

Thus began what is known as the Maccabean Revolt, which produced the Hasmonean Dynasty.6

Though a devout priest, Mattathias made a crucial, two-fold decision relating to the resistance effort he would lead. First, he determined his forces would fight any and every day of the week, including the Sabbath. Second, he decided on a strategy that included offensive as well as defensive action against the Syrians. The Hasidim quickly joined his efforts.

Within a year of his revolt at Modein, Mattathias died, but had named his son, Judas, to lead the movement. He proved to be a bold, elusive, and clever strategist for the guerrilla campaign and later as a field general. He first led rapid sorties out of the wilderness areas, destroying pagan altars, performing circumcisions, and generally enforcing Moses’ law, striking fear in the hearts of the apostates and modernizers. These efforts replaced despair with hope in the hearts of masses and attracted ever-growing numbers to their insurgency. In a two-year span he molded his forces into a regular army that, while always numerically inferior to the Syrian forces, proved superior to them repeatedly on the battlefield. The successes of the Maccabeans won them a peace treaty with the Syrians just two years after the uprising that began with one elderly priest in a small town.

Judas was able to march into Jerusalem and restore the worship of Jehovah without Syrian interference. The old defiled altar was torn down and a new one erected, the garments and furniture replaced, and the temple was rededicated with sacrifices on Kislev (December) 25, 165 B.C., exactly three years after its defilement by the swine-offering (McClish 18).

Judas decreed an eight-day feast in perpetuity to commemorate this occasion, to which John refers (John 10:22), and which Jews yet observe as Hanukkah. Ironically, the demented Antiochus Epiphanes died in early 164, only a few weeks after the dedication of the temple he had defiled. Daniel’s “little horn” that came forth from one of the four “notable horns” and that took away the continual burnt offering and shut up the sanctuary at last “was cast down” (8:9– 11, 23–25).

With the freedom regained to openly follow the Law, the Hasidim had accomplished their aims; they never had political ambitions. Not so with the Maccabees, however, who sought political as well as religious liberty. Menelaus, the Benjamite High Priest, was replaced with Alcimus, a descendant of Aaron, but nonetheless a zealous Hellenist. When he gained office (with Hasidim support), he promptly had sixty of the Hasidim leaders executed. The Maccabeans fled once more to the hills to carry on the fight. They won one more major battle with the Syrians, after which, in 161, Judas sought and obtained a mutual defense pact with Rome—the rising power in the West that had earlier scotched the Syrian threat to Egypt. Shortly afterward, the Syrian army finally crushed the Maccabean rebels before Rome could come to their aid, and the heroic Judas fell. Thus seven years after Mattathias took his stand, the first chapter of the resistance to the Syrian attempt to destroy Judaism came to a close. It appeared for the moment that all was now lost and that the Jewish Hellenizers would be able to move forward unrestrained. History shows that such rejoicing in Antioch and Jerusalem was premature, however.

 

Jewish Independence Achieved

Judas’ mantle fell upon his brother, Jonathan, who proved his military ability in further successful guerrilla strikes, but who accomplished far more by other means:

He was the crafty politician rather than the warrior. During the eighteen years of his leadership (161–143) Israel was to make great seeming advances, not due so much to her own strength, but through the clever way that Jonathan and his successors turned the weakness of Syria with its ever-present rival claimants for the throne to the advantage of Palestine (Enslin 20).

Alcimus, the Hellenistic High Priest, died in 159, and the office remained vacant the next few years. Jonathan threw his support behind the rival to Syria’s throne who eventually triumphed, for which he was duly rewarded. The most dramatic Maccabean gains of political power to this point were realized when, in 153, the new Syrian ruler named Jonathan High Priest. “In the span of only fifteen years (167–153), the Seleucid powers had run the gamut from attempted annihilation of the Maccabeans, to outbidding each other for their favor!” (McClish 25). It got better: In 150 the same Syrian monarch declared Jonathan “governor and partaker of his dominion.” This empowered him to drive the entire remaining pro-Greek element out of Jewish government for good.

In 143, Jonathan fell into the hands of a Syrian insurgent who executed him. The Maccabean leadership now fell upon Simon, yet another of the sons of Mattathias. He was so successful militarily as a general that he could demand complete independence from Syria, which he received. For the first time in almost five centuries the Judean Jews could claim independent national status. The people appointed Simon High Priest along with his military and civil power as governor, which roles he filled with great success and honor. The legitimizing of Simon as religious, military, and civil ruler (i.e., Ethnarch) marked the beginning of the Hasmonean Dynasty, that, in one form or another, would continue until the beginning of the Roman rule (63 B.C.).

Simon fell prey, however, to political intrigue within his own family. In a bid for power, his son-in-law murdered him and two of his three sons in 135 B.C. The third son, John Hyrcanus, escaped the plot and succeeded in laying claim to all of his father’s titles. George Gibson described his interest as follows: “Fired with great worldly ambitions, he gave himself to mere conquest. The marvelous religious zeal that had characterized the Maccabeans disappeared, and in its place there came worldliness and greed for power” (19). He destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim and compelled the city of Samaria to capitulate, however, not out of religious zeal, but because the Samaritans had long been a disturbing element to the Jews politically.

Hyrcanus died in 104, by which time the Jewish state was at its greatest power since the time of Solomon. His son, Aristobulus I, disdaining ethnarch, denoted himself King of the Jews. His Jewish name was Judah, which he used only in dealing with his own people. He preferred Aristobulus, his Hellenistic name, thereby showing his sympathies for Hellenism, the very influence that provoked the father of his dynasty to revolution six decades earlier. When he came to power he imprisoned his stepmother (whom he starved to death) and all of his stepbrothers, lest they challenge his power. The world was better off when he died after only one year.

One of Aristobulus’ imprisoned stepbrothers, Alexander Jannaeus, succeeded him and ruled the Judean kingdom the better part of thirty years. He extended his kingdom’s borders to rival those of Solomon’s, even as Hyrcanus had brought the Kingdom to a place of influence not seen by the Jews since the days of “Solomon in all his glory.” He was even more cruel to his subjects than Aristobulus had been to his family. He was also a Hellenist, and the descendants of the Hasidim hated him and publicly reviled him. Lamar McGinty described his revenge: “In retaliation for this hatred he killed, in all, probably 50,000 of his people, some 800 being crucified at a banquet after their wives and children had been slain before their eyes. This tragic occasion introduces us to the cross in Jewish history” (143-44).

He left the kingdom to his wife Alexandra when he died in 76 B.C., and she occupied the throne nine years, appointing her son, Hyrcanus II, High Priest. When Alexandra died (67), Hyrcanus became king, a role for which he had neither interest nor aptitude. His younger brother, Aristobulus II, unseated him in less than a year, causing him to flee for asylum to Aretas, a Nabatean Arab chief whose stronghold was the “rose city” of Petra, about seventy miles south of the Dead Sea. Another non-Jew, Antipater, an Idumean7 chieftain, sought to gain power in Jerusalem by restoring Hyrcanus II as his “puppet king.” He bargained with Aretas to rally his Arab hordes to besiege Aristobulus II in Jerusalem.

The Roman general, Pompey, then in the East, sent his army to Jerusalem and “mediated” the conflict by taking Jerusalem. The Romans would hereafter have dominance in Palestine. The Hasmonean rule was at an end, and with it, Jewish independence. The year was 63 B.C. (McClish 27).

 

The Jews Under Rome

Pompey removed Aristobulus and took him and his family, along with other Jews, to Rome to include in his homecoming victory parade of the conquered. When he restored Hyrcanus II as High Priest and Ethnarch of the province of Judea, he rewarded Antipater by making him adviser to Hyrcanus. Julius Caesar treated the Jews with benevolence regarding their religious observances and general freedoms, but he required their annual tribute money, as would be expected of a subjugated people.

Caesar further rewarded Antipater by appointing him procurator of Judea in 48 B.C., making him a very powerful political force in Palestine. He was poisoned after only one year in office, and his two sons, Phasael and Herod later were appointed procurators of Judea and Galilee, respectively. Furthering Herod’s rise was Antony’s favor after Caesar died in 44 B.C. Moreover, he married Mariamne, granddaughter of Hyrcanus, thus marrying into the Hasmonean family. Antony named him King of the Jews in 37, which title he held until his death in 4 B.C., his reign briefly overlapping with the birth of our Lord.

Herod was so jealous of his power and paranoid concerning plots to seize it (whether real or imagined) that he had several of his family members murdered, including his Hasmonean wife, Mariamne, her mother, and some of his several sons. His paranoia and depths of merciless cruelty are on full parade in his slaughter of the innocents in and around Bethlehem in his efforts to slay the baby Jesus (Mat. 2:16). He left many monuments to his thirst for building, including the famous fortresses of Masada and Herodium. However, the zenith of his construction projects was the rebuilding of the Temple, begun in 20 B.C. The Temple proper was finished in a year and a half, although work on surrounding buildings and courts continued almost to the time of its destruction in A.D. 70.

Herod’s death brings us to the end of the intertestamental period, as miraculous and prophetic activity resumed near the end of his life. Such activity would continue throughout the first century after the Lord’s birth, until the Gospel was revealed and confirmed in its fullness (1 Cor. 13:8–12; Eph. 4:11–15).

 

Miscellaneous Notable Developments of the Period

Although there are no great prophets or inspired historians in the period between the Testaments, the era gave rise to various institutions and even some literature. Notice has already been given to the production in the early third century B.C. of the monumental and vastly influential translation of the Old Testament into Greek—the Septuagint. Brief notice of some of the other significant products of this time is appropriate.

 

The Old Testament Apocryphal Books

Earlier I made reference to the apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees as a primary source of the history of the Maccabeean Revolt and the events that precipitated it. It is one of fourteen books, collectively called “The Apocrypha,” so called because of the meaning of the term: Secret, hidden, or of doubtful origin. The Roman Catholic Bibles sandwich them between the Old and New Testaments, but they are universally—and rightly—omitted from all other Bibles.

All of these books originated in the intertestamental period and were perhaps intended to be somewhat of an uninspired appendix to the Old Testament to fill the inspiration gap between the Testaments. Their dates of writing and authorship are, for the most part, shrouded in uncertainty and mystery. They abound in historical and geographical errors as well as anachronisms and fall well short of the level of the canonical books. The Lord settled the Old Testament canon as He summed up all of its contents as the things “written in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms” (Luke 24:44).

 

Jewish Parties

The Jewish sects of which we read in the New Testament originated in the period between Malachi and Matthew. The two prominent parties discussed in the Gospel accounts, the Pharisees and Sadducees, are believed to have had their origin in the events surrounding the Maccabean Revolt. As mentioned earlier, in response to the Hellenistic pressures that were eroding faithful observance of the Law, the “Hasidim” (“pious ones”) had begun resistance efforts. When, in 168 B.C., Antiochus Epiphanes visited the terrors upon the Jews intended to destroy their religion, the Hasidim began taking to the mountains. When Mattathias and his five sons sparked a full-scale revolt and fled to the mountains a year later, the Hasidim joined their effort. In their zeal for the Law, they played a major part in the success of the Maccabean push for independence.

The Pharisees were perhaps the largest of the sects so much discussed in the Gospel accounts. Although their origin is not known with any certainty, it is possible that they existed as early as the time of Johnathan (161–143 B.C.). Pharisee is generally understood to mean “separated ones.” Historians almost as one believe that the Pharisees are the successors to the Hasidim. When the concession was won to rededicate the Temple and restore Jewish worship, the Hasidim separated from the Maccabean cause. Some speculate that this separation marks the source of the party and gave it its name.

The Sadducees were the offsetting party to the Pharisees and are also prominent in the first four New Testament books. Just as the Hasidim opposed Hellenism, there was also a party that was zealous for it under the Seleucids. It is not uncommon to find the Sadducees identified with this liberal element of two centuries earlier. Sadducee is usually traced to Zadok, the name of the High Priest in Solomon’s court. It was the Hellenizing element that sold its faith to the Seleucid rulers for a mess of political power, and it was the Sadducees who enjoyed such political power in Jesus’ time.

The Zealots, though not as prominent as the aforementioned parties, are worthy of mention, if for no other reason than that the Lord chose as one of His apostles “Simon who was called the Zealot” (Luke 6:15). The Zealot Party agreed with the Pharisees religiously, but they considered it treason to pay tribute to Rome when Jehovah alone was their true and only King. Their origin dates to the time of the Roman sacking of Jerusalem under Pompey (63 B.C.). They engaged in guerrilla-type excursions against Roman garrisons. Like the Maccabeans, they seemed to be bent on fighting to the finish against foreign domination. In zeal, purpose, and strategy they revived the spirit of the Maccabeans.

The Sanhedrin Court conducted travesty trials of the Lord that condemned Him to death and later forbade the apostles to preach any more in Jesus’ name in Jerusalem.

Sanhedrin is a Greek word spelled in English letters that means “sitting together,” thus a council or assembly. It dates back at least to the time of Alexander Jannaeus, the Hasmonean King of Judea (76 B.C.) when it is mentioned in connection with his administration.

 

Conclusion

Herod the Great was the transitional character regarding Jewish history. His permitted “reign” over Judea by the Romans was the bridge between two eras. His last days would be the first earthly days of the prophesied true King of the Jews (but not as a successor to Herod). This King would become “King of kings and Lord of lords” of Jew and Gentile alike. Deity would once more speak and act through more than providence.

Alexander the Great and his successors had supplied Koine Greek, an all but universal language, to the civilized world. The translation of the Old Testament into this language of the people (the Septuagint) made it possible for the first time for many thousands of Gentiles to read the Jewish Scriptures, thereby learning of the one true and living Creator-God and the Messiah of the prophets. The Romans were not only great warriors; they were also great engineers and builders, which resulted in a network of roads. The Pax Romana (“Roman Peace”) that began with the accession of Caesar Augustus in 27 B.C. provided a period of political stability that would endure for two centuries in the vast empire ruled by the Caesars. All of these developments occurred during the “silent years” between “Babylon and Bethlehem,” providentially setting a propitious stage for the fruition of Daniel’s Prophecy: “And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever” (Dan. 2:44). “The fullness of the time” had arrived, and “God sent forth his Son” (Gal. 4:4). Thus ended the four centuries of Scriptural silence.

 

Works Cited

Bickerman, Elias. From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees. New York, NY: Schocken Books, 1962.

Bruce, F.F. Israel and the Nations. Grand Rapids, MI: William. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1963.

Dean, B.S. An Outline of Bible History. Cincinnati, OH: Standard Pub. Co., 1912 rev. ed.

Enslin, Morton Scott. Christian Beginnings—Parts I and II. New York, NY: Harper and Row, Pub., Inc., 1938 (Torch Book ed., 1956).

Gibson, George M. A History of New Testament Times. Nashville, TN: Cokesbury Press, 1926.

Hester, H.I. The Heart of Hebrew History. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press,1962 rev.

Josephus, Flavius. “The Antiquities of the Jews,” Josephus—Complete Works. trans. William Whiston. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Pub., 1960.

McClish, H.W. (Dub), Jr. The Maccabean Revolt. Unpublished MS for Abilene Christian College graduate course, 1967.

McGinty, C. Lamar. From Babylon to Bethlehem. Nashville, TN: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1929.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. Between the Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker book House, 1959.

The New Analytical Bible and Dictionary of the Bible. “From Malachi to Christ.” Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers, 1973.

 

Endnotes

1          For those unaware, B.C. abbreviates Before Christ, which period ends at His birth. Thereafter, the historical era is marked by A.D., the abbreviation for the Latin words, Anno Domini, meaning, “in the year of the Lord,” referring to the birth of Christ. Correct form places A.D. before the date noted (viz., A.D. 250) and B.C. after the date noted (viz., 400 B.C.). It is only fitting that the incarnation of Deity, the birth of the Only Begotten Son of God, should be the dividing line of history.

2          Historians also refer to the Persian Empire as the “Medo-Persian” Empire, its being composed of both Medes and Persians, though the Persian element was dominant. The prophetic references to the  Medes should be understood as meaning the Medo-Persian or Persian Empire (e.g., Isa. 13:17, 19; Jer. 25:25; 51:11).

3          These world empires are depicted again by means of four beasts in Daniel’s vision recorded in 7:2–8.

4          At some point following the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls (Neh. 4:6), Nehemiah returned to Babylon, only to make a second trip to Jerusalem 12 years after his first (2:1; 13:6–7). None else is mentioned as accompanying him on this second trek. Suggested date for the latter visit is 432 B.C.

5          Seleucus Nicator, who received Babylon and upper Syria after Alexander’s demise, founded Antioch in Syria for his capital in about 300 B.C., naming it after his father, Antiochus. It prospered greatly, becoming as significant to the northeastern Mediterranean as Alexandria was to the southeastern. This is the Antioch of Acts 11 and became Paul’s “home congregation.”

6          Hasmonean springs from a priest, Asamoneus, the great grandfather of Mattathias. The Jewish political rulers who descended from him became the Hasmonean dynasty. Maccabean derives from the son of Mattathias, Judas Maccabeus (or “the Maccabee,” i.e., “the hammer”), the son of Mattathias, chosen by his father to succeed him in the insurgency. Thus the revolt or resistance effort is named “Maccabean.”

7          Idumean is another name for an Edomite. Edom was another name given to Esau, Jacob’s twin brother (Gen. 25:30). Thus the Idumeans were very distant “cousins” of the Jews.

 

[Note: I wrote this MS for and I presented a digest of it orally at the Bellview Lectures, hosted by the Bellview Church of Christ, Pensacola, FL, June 7–11, 2013. It was published in the book of the lectures, Innovations, ed. Michael Hatcher (Bellview Church of Christ, Pensacola, FL)].

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)