David’s prophet Nathan may be the same as Gad

 

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

The different names could be explained by, for instance, Nathan being the prophet’s actual name, and Gad being his geographical home – perhaps Ramoth-gilead where Levites dwelt, Gad and Gilead being interchanged.

 

 

Given the similarities between the seer Nathan, the seer Gad, the Scriptures may possibly be describing here just the one person in the same way as, so I believe, David’s shrewd-wise counsellor, Jonadab, continues as the shrewd-wise counsellor Achitophel, thereby completing an absorbing tale of intrigue that had appeared to end too abruptly. Regarding this, see e.g. my article:

 

Absalom and Achitophel

 

(8) Absalom and Achitophel

 

Some similarities between Nathan and Gad are long contemporaneity with the reign of King David; serving the king as a truly wise counsellor; a fearless prophet or seer; a recorder of Davidic history.

 

It would be unlikely - so it seems to me - to have two such similar seers operating over that long a period of Davidic history.

 

The different names could be explained by, for instance, Nathan being the prophet’s actual name, and Gad being his geographical home – perhaps Ramoth-gilead where Levites dwelt, Gad and Gilead being interchanged. This would make him Nathan the Gadite, and it might even connect him to the later great prophet, Elijah, from Gilead.

 

A possible explanation of I Chronicles 29:29-30, then, wherein Samuel, Nathan and Gad appear as if being three distinct prophets:

 

The prophets Samuel, Nathan and Gad wrote history books about all the things that King David did. They wrote down everything that he did as king, from the beginning to the end. The books tell us how he ruled with great power. They tell us about the things that happened to him. They also tell us about the things that happened in Israel and in the other kingdoms in that region ...

 

would be that a waw consecutive is in play here, to be read as: “The prophets Samuel, Nathan, that is the Gadite, wrote history books about all that David did”.

 

According to the Topical Encyclopedia:

Topical Bible: Gad and Nathan

 

Gad was a prophet and seer during the reign of King David, playing a significant role in the spiritual and political life of Israel. He is first mentioned in 1 Samuel 22:5, where he advises David, who was then fleeing from King Saul, to leave the stronghold and go into the land of Judah. This counsel reflects Gad's role as a divine messenger, providing guidance to David during a tumultuous period.

 

Gad's most notable involvement is recorded in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, where he delivers God's message to David after the king's sinful census of Israel. The Lord, displeased with David's action, sends Gad to offer David a choice of three punishments: three years of famine, three months of fleeing from enemies, or three days of plague. David chooses to fall into the hands of the Lord, resulting in a devastating plague. Gad later instructs David to build an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, where the plague is halted. This site becomes the location for Solomon's Temple, underscoring Gad's influence on Israel's religious heritage.

 

Gad is also mentioned in 1 Chronicles 29:29, where he is noted as one of the authors of the records of King David's reign, alongside Samuel the seer and Nathan the prophet. This highlights Gad's role not only as a spiritual advisor but also as a chronicler of Israel's history.

Nathan

 

Nathan was a prominent prophet during the reigns of King David and King Solomon, known for his courage and faithfulness in delivering God's messages. He first appears in 2 Samuel 7, where he initially encourages David to build a house for the Lord. However, after receiving a divine revelation, Nathan returns to David with a message from God, promising that David's offspring will build the temple and that his kingdom will be established forever. This prophecy is foundational to the Davidic Covenant, which has significant theological implications for the messianic lineage.

 

Nathan's most famous encounter with David occurs in 2 Samuel 12, following David's adultery with Bathsheba and the arranged death of her husband, Uriah. Nathan confronts David with a parable about a rich man who unjustly takes a poor man's lamb, leading David to pronounce judgment on himself.

Nathan then reveals David's sin, prompting the king's repentance. This episode underscores Nathan's role as a fearless prophet who holds even the king accountable to God's standards.

 

Nathan also plays a crucial role in the succession of Solomon to the throne. In 1 Kings 1, as David's life nears its end, Nathan, along with Bathsheba, ensures that Solomon is anointed king, thwarting Adonijah's attempt to seize the throne. Nathan's actions demonstrate his commitment to God's will and the stability of the Davidic line.

 

Nathan is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 29:29 as one of the authors of the records of King David's reign, alongside Samuel the seer and Gad the seer. This indicates his involvement in documenting the history and spiritual legacy of Israel during a pivotal era.

 

 

 

 

Saint Joseph the perfect icon of God the Father

 

“This is the theological foundation of the holy Patriarch’s greatness as virginal, messianic father of the Only-begotten of the Father: shadow and transparent icon of Him who wished to make Joseph unique partaker of his fatherhood in order to prepare the human nature of Christ for the holocaust of Calvary”.

 Jonathan Fleischmann

  

Today is the feast-day of Saint Joseph

 19^th March, 2026

  

The Vertex of Love

October 8, 2012 by Jonathan Fleischmann

 

When Mary was predestined in one and the same decree with

Jesus Christ by the design of God—before the creation of angels or

the universe, and before the existence of sin or evil—she was predestined to be the Spouse of the Holy Spirit … to hold within herself 

all the love of creation.

Love’s Mechanics

 

In the return of all created things to God the Father (cf. Jn 1, 1; 16, 28), “the equal and contrary reaction,” says St. Maximilian Kolbe, “proceeds inversely from that of creation.”  In creation, the saint goes on to say, the action of God “proceeds from the Father through the Son and the Spirit, while in the return, by means of the Spirit, the Son becomes incarnate in (the Virgin Mary’s) womb and through Him, love returns to the Father.” …. 

The Saint of Auschwitz goes on:

 

In the union of the Holy Spirit with her, not only does love bind these two beings, but the first of them (the Holy Spirit) is all the love of the Most Holy Trinity, while the second (the Blessed Virgin Mary) is all the love of creation, and thus in that union heaven is joined to earth, the whole heaven with the whole earth, the whole of Uncreated Love with the whole of created love: this is the vertex of love. ….

 

Love’s Equilibrium

The form of the diagram shown in Figure 1 is not found in the work of St. Maximilian. 

     Figure 1:  The return of all created things to God the Father.

 

However, it accurately represents the state of equal and opposite action and reaction, that occurs when two bodies make contact.  In this case, the “bodies” represent heaven and earth:  the uncreated and created orders, God and his creation.  The first point I would like to make is that the state of equal and opposite contact forces in Newtonian mechanics requires “force equilibrium.”  It may then seem very wrong to use an image like this one, because how can the state shown between God and his creation be in equilibrium?  Isn’t God’s act of love so much greater than the return of his creation that no “equilibrium” would be possible?  This would certainly be the case if it were not for Emmanuel, that is, God with us.  Jesus, who is truly man, and truly God, belongs to both the created and uncreated orders simultaneously.  In his person, Jesus is both the son of Mary, fully human and like us in all ways except sin, and the Eternal Son of God the Father, infinite and equal in all ways to the Triune God.

....

Thus, the love of Jesus, the Word Made Flesh who is God, is by itself enough to “balance” the love of God.  However, there is even more in the equation of love’s equilibrium than the love of the Son, infinite and sufficient in itself, though it is.  According to St. Maximilian, the perfect love of the Trinity meets an adequate response in the perfect love of the Immaculate, which is the name St. Maximilian gives to the Blessed Virgin Mary. 

 

How is it possible that Divine Love can find an adequate response in the love of a creature?  It is possible precisely because of the name that the Virgin Mary can claim for herself.  In 1854, the Blessed Virgin Mary proclaimed to St. Bernadette Soubirous: “I am the Immaculate Conception.” 

 

In the words of St. Maximilian, the Blessed Virgin is the created Immaculate Conception, as in the words of St. Bonaventure, the Holy Spirit is the uncreated Immaculate Conception. ….

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son, as the perfect and infinite love between the Father and the Son in the eternal interior life of the Blessed Trinity. Thus, the Holy Spirit is truly all the love of the Most Holy Trinity.  The Holy Spirit is also called the “Complement” of the Blessed Trinity, because he is the completion of the Trinity, not in “number” (quantitatively), but in essence (qualitatively).

 

When Mary was predestined in one and the same decree with Jesus Christ … by the design of God—before the creation of angels or the universe, and before the existence of sin or evil—she was predestined to be the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

 

So she was predestined to hold within herself all the love of creation.  Thus, St. Maximilian says that the Blessed Virgin Mary “inserted into the love of the Most Holy Trinity becomes, from the very first moment of her existence, always, forever, the Complement of the Most Holy Trinity.” We may paraphrase the thoughts of St. Maximilian Kolbe on the spousal relationship between the Holy Spirit, and the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the words of Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner:

 

In virtue of this spousal union formally denoted by the title, Complement, Mary is able to enter, as no other, into the order of the hypostatic union, her soul being wholly divinized, because by the grace of the Immaculate Conception, it has been ‘transubstantiated’ into the Holy Spirit. ….

 

It is for this reason that Mary—though she is a creature in both her person and her nature—is herself the created Immaculate Conception, and, therefore, all the love of creation. She can actually provide an adequate response to the love of the Holy Spirit, who is the uncreated Immaculate Conception, and, therefore, all the Love of God.  Thus, the equation of love’s equilibrium is balanced again.

 

Now that we have balanced the equation of love’s equilibrium twice over, we could certainly stop. However, there is reason to continue. St. Maximilian does not expressly mention St. Joseph in the context of these reflections. 

 

However, the diagram in Figure 1, based entirely on the saint’s own reflections, certainly suggests the presence of St. Joseph in the order of the response of creation to God the Father. The order of Father, Son, and, Holy Spirit, shown in the diagram, reflects the order of God’s loving act of creation.

 

This was initiated by the zeal of the Father, designed by the wisdom of the Son, and effected by the action of the Holy Spirit. This is the order referred to by St. Maximilian when he says that: “the equal and contrary reaction (i.e., the return of all creation to God) proceeds inversely from that of creation.” We see this reflection in the diagram, where the reaction “force” of love is inverted, and the order of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the “action force,” is reversed to give the order of Holy Spirit, Son, and Father.

 

Notice, however, that in the return to God, it is creation that is reacting. Thus, the individuals reacting—while reflecting the Holy Spirit, Son, and Father to greater or lesser degrees—are all creatures.  We have Mary, who is the perfect similitude (St. Bonaventure), transparent icon (St. Maximilian), or even quasi-incarnation (St. Maximilian) of the Holy Spirit, but who is still a created person, with a created human nature. We have Jesus, who is the Word Incarnate, the same Person as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, but who is still in possession of a created human nature. St. Maximilian stops here, but must we stop here? I would dare to say that the analogy we have carried out so far on the inspiration of St. Maximilian suggests an obvious completion. We have St. Joseph, who has been called the “perfect icon of God the Father” by more than one saint. …. In the words of Fr. Joachin Ferrer Arellano:

 

In the light of the Scotistic thesis on the Primacy of Christ, to take one example, one discovers (…) how the virginal marriage of Mary and Joseph was predestined “ante mundi constitutionem” (before the constitution of the world), as an essential part of the one decree of the Incarnation of the Word in the womb of the Immaculate “ante praevisa merita” (before any consideration of antecedent merit). Such is the saving plan, “the mystery hidden before the ages in God,” (cf. Eph 3:9) to be accomplished at the high point in the history of salvation. That high point is the fullness of time (cf. Gal 4:4) when God sent his Son into the most pure bosom of Holy Mary Ever Virgin, espoused to a man of the house of David (cf. Lk 1:26) in fulfillment of the prophecy of Nathan. 

 

God acted thus, that through the obedience of the Spouses of Nazareth the Son might be freely welcomed into history on behalf of all mankind in order to save it. This welcome took place in the virginal womb of Mary, the Daughter of Zion, and in the house of Joseph, in the family home established by the marriage of the two Spouses (Mary and Joseph), “sanctuary of love and cradle of life.” 

 

This is the theological foundation of the holy Patriarch’s greatness as virginal, messianic father of the Only-begotten of the Father: shadow and transparent icon of Him who wished to make Joseph unique partaker of his fatherhood in order to prepare the human nature of Christ for the holocaust of Calvary. In this way, He made Joseph Father and Lord of the Church gushing forth from Christ’s opened side and born of the sword of sorrow of the Woman. ….

 

In addition to being the transparent icon of God the Father, St. Joseph was the true, virginal husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary. ….  In fact, it can even be said that St. Joseph is the virginal father of Jesus Christ.  For, again in the words of Fr. Joachin Ferrer Arellano:

 

Although singular, unique, and not univocal with fatherhood as this is ordinarily understood and commonly found among men, the position more common and traditional among theologians upholds the truly real fatherhood of Joseph in relation to Jesus, based 1) on his marriage to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and 2) on the right of the husband over his wife. He, therefore, who is born virginally of Mary, by reason of his birth, intimately pertains in some manner to Joseph as father. … In view of the dignity of Joseph as husband of Mary, to whom belongs the fruit of his wife’s womb, one is not permitted to overlook … how the indivisible virginity of both spouses—not simply that of Mary, but also that of her husband, the son of David—is ordered to the virginal fatherhood of Joseph according to the Spirit, in virtue of the obedience of faith to the saving plan of God. This plan includes the messianic fatherhood of Joseph as son of David in relation to his virginal Son, constituted Son of David, the messianic King, because He was Son of Joseph. ….

 

In the return of all created things to God the Father, it is under the leadership, and in imitation of, St. Joseph, our patriarch, that the individual members of the Church must, by the merits gained for us through the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, be transubstantiated into Mary, who is the Virgo Ecclesia Facta (Virgin-Made-Church). ….

 

It is only by being transubstantiated into Mary, the created Immaculate Conception, that we can be united to God as she is uniquely united to God, being transubstantiated with her into the uncreated Immaculate Conception, who is the Holy Spirit. In virtue of this transubstantiation, we are possessed by the Immaculate, and we are thereby formed into a single community, or Church, sharing her personality. To St. Maximilian, this is the only way that we can be members of Christ’s Church, and thereby united to God. 

….

 

Taken from: http://www.hprweb.com/2012/10/the-vertex-of-love/

 

 

Biblical characters in the Mari Archive Era

 

 by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

 

Roundly dated to c. 1800 BC, the Mari letters - which include mention of

the great Hammurabi, king of Babylon (c. 1792 to c. 1750 BC, conventional dating) – have awaited a more satisfactory revised dating.

This would not actually be achieved for a full 50 years after the documents

had been discovered by French archaeologist André Parrot, in 1936.

 

 

 

Bryant G. Wood writes (2006):

Amazing Discoveries in Biblical Archaeology: The Mari Archive

 

The value of the Mari texts for biblical studies lies in the fact that Mari is located in the vicinity of the homeland of the patriarchs, being about 200 miles (320 km) southeast of Haran. It thus shares a common culture with the area where the patriarchs originated. Some documents detail practices such as adoption and inheritance in ways that accord with how these practices are shown in the Genesis accounts.

 

The tablets speak of the slaughtering of animals when covenants were made, judges similar to the judges of the Old Testament, gods that are also named in the Hebrew Bible, and personal names such as Noah, Abram, Laban, and Jacob. A city named Nahur, possibly named after Abraham’s grandfather Nahor (Gn 11:22–25), is mentioned, as well as the city of Haran, where Abraham lived for a time (Gn 11:31–12:4). Hazor is spoken of often in the Mari texts, and there is a reference to Laish (Dan) as well. A unique collection of 30 texts deals with prophetic messages that were delivered to local rulers who relayed them to the king. ….

[End of quote]

 

Mari wrongly dated

 

Roundly dated to c. 1800 BC, the Mari letters – which include mention of the great Hammurabi, king of Babylon (c. 1792 to c. 1750 BC, conventional dating) – have awaited a more satisfactory revised dating.

This would not actually be achieved for a full 50 years after the documents had been discovered by French archaeologist André Parrot, in 1936. For it was only in 1986 that Dean Hickman recognised that leading Mari figures approximately contemporaneous with Hammurabi, such as the powerful Syro-Assyrian ruler, Shamsi-Adad I, and his father, Uru-kabkabu, were actual biblical figures at the time of King David of Israel. In his groundbreaking article, “The Dating of Hammurabi” (C&AH Proc. 3rd Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History, Uni. of Toronto, 1986), Dean Hickman identified Shamsi-Adad as David’s Syrian foe, Hadadezer, and Uru-kabkabu (ru-kab) as the latter’s father, Rekhob (2 Samuel 8:3): “David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates”.

 

Unfortunately revisionists, generally – even some very good ones – have not chosen to build upon Dean Hickman’s solid base.

And look what they might be missing out on!

The following are what I have been able to develop on the strength of Dean Hickman’s revised context:

 

Zimri-Lim of Mari is King Solomon’s foe, Rezon (I Kings 11:23-25): “Yahweh raised up another adversary against King Solomon, Rezon, son of Eliada, who had fled from his master Hadadezer, King of Zobah. He gathered followers around him”.

 

Eliada, father of Rezon, is Iahdu-lim, the father of Zimri-Lim.

Note the common iada iahdu element, plus the theophoric.

 

This already gives us a handy clutch of four biblical characters: (i) Rekhob, father of (ii) Hadadezer; and (iii) Eliada, father of (iv) Rezon.

 

No other proposed revisions of the Hammurabic era can offer anything as biblically substantial as this.

But that is not all.

Added to this, there are discernible biblical (Genesis, Davidic and Solomonic) influences at the time.

For instance, the Genesis influence in the architecture of Zimri-Lim:

 

Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as contemporaries of Solomon. Part Two (b): Zimri-Lim's Palace and the four rivers?

 

(6) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as contemporaries of Solomon. Part Two (b): Zimri-Lim's Palace and the four rivers?

 

Also, the frequent claims of the kings of the time, notably Hammurabi and Rim Sin, to have been, like David famously was, shepherd kings:

 

Shepherd King contemporaries of King David

 

(6) Shepherd King contemporaries of King David

 

Rim Sin goes even further, to calling himself, like David truly was (Acts 13:22), a man after the heart of the god.

 

“Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd,

the desire of his heart”.

 

While historians of antiquity would draw the conclusion that Rim Sin must have influenced King David – and rightly so, according to the conventional dating which would have David more than half a millennium after Rim Sin (c. 1822 BC to 1763 BC) – the truth of the matter is that King David was an older contemporary of Rim Sin and of Hammurabi. 

 

And well known now is the Mosaïc influence upon the so-called Code of Hammurabi.

 

The major cultural and sapiential influences were coming directly from Israel (the Hebrews).

 

Can further biblical identifications be made?

 

I believe so.

But the following will need some geographical adjustment.

 

With the passing of Shamsi-Adad I, the greatest king of the region was Yarim Lim. One governor estimated that, “No king is truly powerful just on his own: 10 to 15 kings follow Hammurabi of Babylon, as many follow Rim- Sin of Larsa, as many follows Ibal-pi-El of Eshnunna, and as many follows Amut-pi-El of Qatna; but 20 kings follow Yarim-Lim of Yamḫad.” [FMA 82]

 

Yarim Lim, whose kingdom of Yamkhad has not yet been properly defined, must have been the great Hiram king of Tyre, the ally of David and his son, Solomon. Like Hiram, Yarim Lim was a tough businessman, dealing in fleets of ships, who called his colleagues, “brother”, and who did not like to be messed with:

 

King Solomon’s other great ally King Hiram

 

(6) King Solomon’s other great ally King Hiram

 

Yarim Lim’s Kingdom

 

The Kingdom of Yamkhad (Yamhad), of unspecified extent, appears to have been centred on Aleppo (Halab).

My tentative suggestion is that Yamkhad (Yam perhaps being a reference to the Sea) was the poorly known Sealand kingdom, which I think must be a re-located Chaldea:

 

Region Assyria meant by Mãt-tâmti, the "Sealand"

 

(4) Region Assyria meant by Mãt-tâmti, the "Sealand"

 

This would mean that Yarim Lim controlled important coastal ports.

Yarim Lim may have been, like Shamsi-Adad I is reputed to have been, a somewhat mobile ruler, moving from one major location to the next.

These were the descendants of tent-dwelling Amorites.

 

As the biblical Hiram, he is called King of Tyre, so his influence must have spread right down the coast. We read, also, that he could threaten to invade the land of Elam:

Yarim Lim I - Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia

“Yarim-Lim extended his influence to several other important city-states in Syria through alliance and vassalage, including Urshu and the rich kingdom of Ugarit. The relationship between Qatna and Yamhad seems to have improved during Yarim-Lim's reign as well. The armies of Aleppo campaigned as far as Elam … a tablet discovered at mari revealed the extent of those military interventions  … the tablet includes a declaration of war against Dēr and Diniktum in retaliation for their Evil deeds, a reminder to the king of Dēr about the military help given to him for fifteen years by Yarim-Lim and the stationing of 500 Aleppan warships for twelve years in Diniktum.

 

By the time of his death, Yarim-Lim, had more than twenty kings as vassals and allies. According to Historian William J. Hamblin he was at the time the "mightiest ruler in the Near East outside of Egypt," he died c. 1764 BC and was succeeded by his Son Hammurabi I”.

 

The suggested relationship here, of Yarim Lim and “his Son Hammurabi I”, would most likely be – with Yarim Lim now identified as Hiram – the biblical combination of Hiram and his brilliant artificer official (and perhaps son-in-law) Huram-abi:

Topical Bible: Huram-abi

“Huram-abi, also known as Hiram-abi, is a significant figure in the biblical narrative, particularly in the context of the construction of Solomon's Temple. He is mentioned in the Old Testament as a skilled craftsman sent by King Hiram of Tyre to assist King Solomon in building the temple in Jerusalem. His account is primarily found in 2 Chronicles 2”.

 

This potentially enlarges our clutch of Mari-biblical characters to (i) Rekhob, father of (ii) Hadadezer; (iii) Eliada, father of (iv) Rezon; (v) Hiram; and (vi) Huram-abi.

 

What about the contemporaneous David and Solomon?

 

Very early in the peace I had been struck by a most David-like name, Dadusha.

Surely, I thought, he must be David of the Mari era.

However, there was a major geographical problem that did not seem to allow this identification to be realised. Dadusha was from Eshnunna, a town presumably located in Central Mesopotamia (see map below) – far from where King David roamed.

 

It was only when geographical tsunamis started rolling in:

 

More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea

 

(4) More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea

 

that it became possible radically to reconstruct the geography of the ancient world, even to lifting cities out of Sumer – even to lifting Sumer out of Sumer:

 

“The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia

 

(4) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia

 

Cutting to the chase here, to save space, Eshnunna now re-emerged as Ashdod, the mighty Judean fort of Lachish:

 

As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash

 

(4) As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash

 

David now, all of a sudden, could be Dadusha of Eshnunna, whose mother city was Girsu (Jerusalem):

 

Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu

 

(4) Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu

 

This would make it most likely that Ibal-piel of Eshnunna, son of Dadusha, was Solomon, in his later, idolatrous phase.