by
Damien F. Mackey
When the ancient world conventionally dated to the C18th
BC is shunted downwards and re-set in what I consider to be its proper place,
at approximately c. 1000 BC (during the United Monarchy period of Israel), then
there emerges from the supposedly earlier period of history a whole galaxy of
biblical characters, including King Hiram, who were actual contemporaries of
Israel’s great kings, Saul, David and Solomon.
But who is Hiram Abiff?
Introduction
Sufficient
compelling biblical characters of the United Monarchy period emerge from the
historical records of what convention has estimated as the C18th BC for me to
accept that revisionist historian Dean Hickman had got it right when he,
finally solving the problem of the ‘liquid’ chronology of king Hammurabi,
re-set his era at the time of David and Solomon (“The Dating of Hammurabi”, Proceedings of the 3rd Seminar of
Catastrophism and Ancient History, Uni. of Toronto, 1985, pp. 13-28).
A crucial connection in all of this was Hickman’s identification
of the powerful king, Shamsi-Adad I, as king David’s Syrian foe, Hadadezer.
Now, according to 2 Samuel 8:3, this Hadadezer was the
son of Rekhob (Rehob), and Hickman was able to find that name, Rekhob, embedded
in the name of Shamsi-Adad I’s father, Ilu kabkabu, or Uru kabkabu (Rukab =
Rekhob).
Given this revised scenario, then Shamsi-Adad I’s
younger contemporary, king Hammurabi of Babylon, must now be a contemporary of
the great king Solomon himself.
Other biblical links with history also arise from this
revised scenario.
Zimri-Lim of Mari, a troublesome foe of king
Hammurabi’s, can now be recognized as king Solomon’s foe, Rezon [or Rezin]. And
once again there is an appropriate match for the father’s name: Iahdulim (or
Iahdunlim), the known father of Zimri-Lim, equates with Eliada. 1 Kings
11:23: “And God sent another trouble-maker, Rezon, the son of
Eliada, who had gone in flight from his lord, Hadadezer, king of Zobah”.
This series of correspondences has led me to write:
Zimri Lim to be Re-Located to Era of King Solomon
And I have gone even further than this by tentatively
proposing that the great Lawgiver, Hammurabi, was king Solomon himself, exerting
his influence even over Babylon:
Hammurabi the Great King of Babylon was King Solomon
Whether or not this last turns out to be correct, I am
at least confident of the close contemporaneity of Solomon, Hammurabi.
Finally, one could expect that this well-documented
era of Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim, now revised, might yield up also evidence for the
great King Hiram of Tyre, a loyal friend of both David’s and Solomon’s.
And that is just what we find.
King Hiram of Tyre
I have previously identified King Hiram with the
powerful Amorite king, Iarim-Lim (or Yarim-Lim), whose conventional dates are c. 1780 BC – c. 1764 BC, or,
according to a Middle Chronology, c. 1735 BC -?
{The element, -Lim, in the king’s name, may serve the
same purpose as it did in the case above of Iahdu-lim, equating to biblical El-iada
(Lim – El)}.
It was thanks to the extensive rule of King Hiram, as
Iarim-Lim, that Hiram’s ally, Solomon, was able – as I surmised – to rule over
so vast a territory, including his Babylonian possessions as, perhaps,
Hammurabi (http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hammurabi.html):
- But, if Hammurabi were King Solomon, as I am proposing, how did he get to rule Babylon and its environs with such apparent total domination?
- And, if Solomon had in fact so ruled Babylon, then why doesn't the Bible make any mention of this extraordinary fact?
The answer to the first question is: Due to the alliance between
David (then Solomon) with the mighty king Hiram. The power of Hiram, as Iarim-Lim,
extended from Phoenicia (Lebanon) all the way through Babylonia, to Elam. In Chapter
Two of my post-graduate thesis, "A Revised History of the Era of
King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background”, I wrote concerning this:
… what may perhaps help us to gain some
real perspective on potential range of rule at this approximate time in ancient
history are the geographical terms of a recorded message from Iarim-Lim - whom
we met as a powerful (older) contemporary of Hammurabi - to the prince of Dêr
in Babylonia, whom, incidentally, Iarim-Lim calls 'brother' [cf. 1 Kings
9:13].
Kupper tells of it:
"In this message, Iarimlim reminds his 'brother' that he had saved
his life fifteen years before, at the time when he was coming to the help of
Babylon, and that he had also given his support to the king of the town of Diniktum,
on the Tigris, to whom he supplied five hundred boats. Outraged by the prince
of Dêr's ingratitude he threatens to come at the head of his troops and
exterminate him”.
".... Whatever the circumstances of the
[Babylon] expedition were, it says a great deal for the military power of
Iarimlim, who had led the soldiers of Aleppo as far as the borders of Elam [modern Iran]."
According to a report of the day (Mari
Letters), Iarim-Lim's (Yarim-Lim's) status was greater than that of Hammurabi
(presumably early in his reign) …:
"… there are ten or fifteen
kings who follow Hammurabi of Babylon and ten or fifteen who follow Rim-sin of Larsa but twenty kings follow Yarim-Lim of Yamkhad." ….
Now that was all going to change!
In the same Chapter Two, I had reproduced [Dr.
Donovan] Courville's argument that Iarim-Lim had conquered Alalakh from the Philistines, and he (his dynasty)
had ruled there (Alalakh Level VII) for about half a century, before the
Philistines resumed their former occupation there. …. The obvious conclusion
was that the people of Iarim-Lim (Amorites) had conquered this city and
probably also the surrounding territory, ruling it for a period estimated to
have been about 50 years. At the end of this time, the original inhabitants
were able to re-conquer the site and reoccupy it.
It is perhaps this half century
or so of Amorite dominance, extending as far as Elam, as we saw, that pertains
also to the time of the "First Dynasty of Babylon". This is such an
obscure dynasty prior to Hammurabi that we cannot say so very much about its origins.
But Herb Storck has helped to ease this situation somewhat in his fine article
["The Early Assyrian King List, The Genealogy of the Hammurapi
Dynasty, and the ‘Greater Amorite’ Tradition”, Proc. 3rd Seminar
Catastrophism and Ancient History, 1986, Toronto, pp. 43-50] in which he is able to show a link between the earliest
Assyrian kings and the early Hammurabic dynasty, thus concluding [p. 45]:
"Nine of the 17
tent-dwelling [Assyrian King List] kings can reasonably be identified with GHD [Genealogy
of the Hammurabi Dynasty] ancestors of Hammurapi."
One of these possibly is Zuabu
(Assyrian King List) with Su-abu or Sumu-abum (GHD), the apparent founder of
the "First Babyonian Dynasty". There is also a Sumu'epuh, very
similar to this name, Sumu-abum (Su-abu), preceding Iarim-Lim. …. And, most
interestingly, the name Iarim-Lim here is followed by the name, Hammurabi.
This may of course be a different Hammurabi. {In fact there was at the time of
Hiram and Solomon a similarly named Huram-abi, a master-craftsman, 1
Kings 7:13, who has become the key figure in Freemasonry, as Hiram-abiff}.
Though it would be almost certain that the uxorious Solomon would have married
a daughter of his great ally, Hiram. In this case, the "First Babylonian
Dynasty", as we have it, could perhaps have been a blending of Judah-ite
and Hiram-ite lines, both western Semitic. ….
[End of quote]
Whilst Courville’s estimation that the dynasty of Iarim-Lim
was chronologically located to “the general era of the Exodus-Conquest” came
far closer to reality (about 300 years closer), in my view, than does the
conventional estimate, it was still only about halfway right according to this
present (Hickman-based) re-setting of it to the time of David
and Solomon. My contribution here has been to identify this great
Iarim-Lim as the biblical King Hiram. This brings Iarim-Lim about
half a millennium later than even Courville’s radical chronological estimation
for the king and his archaeological level.
I have discussed the latter in detail in my thesis, how
Dr. Courville’s wrong placement of Iarim-Lim, in relation to biblical history,
has led him to a degree of misalignment with the Alalakh stratigraphy. Given
that Iarim-Lim (Hiram) was an ally of David’s, then we might expect that Iarim-Lim
had suppressed (at Alalakh VII) one of David’s major enemies. These were the
Syrians (not relevant here) and the Philistines.
This may further support Courville’s conclusion that the
majority of Alalakh levels pertain to the Philistine conglomerate (various Sea
Peoples of which the Philistines were only one – the Bible perhaps lumps these
all together under the broad name “Philistines”. Heb. Pelushtim).
Hiram Abiff
The semi-legendary Hiram Abiff (Abif) is loosely
based upon a skilful biblical artisan sent by King Hiram to King Solomon, to
assist the latter with the building of the Temple of Yahweh. King Hiram tells
Solomon about the man (2 Chronicles 2:13-14):
‘I am sending you Huram-Abi, a man of great skill, whose mother was from Dan and whose
father was from Tyre. He is trained to work in gold and silver, bronze and
iron, stone and wood, and with purple and blue and crimson yarn and fine linen.
He is experienced in all kinds of engraving and can execute any design given to
him. He will work with your skilled workers and with those of my lord, David
your father’.
The Hebrew words for what is here rendered as Huram-Abi,
are:
אבי חורם
In I Kings 7:13-14, however, the man is simply
called “Huram” (Hiram), not Huram-Abi:
King
Solomon sent to Tyre and brought Huram, whose mother was a widow from the tribe of Naphtali and whose father
was from Tyre and a skilled craftsman in bronze. Huram was filled with wisdom,
with understanding and with knowledge to do all kinds of bronze work. He came
to King Solomon and did all the work assigned to him.
C. Torrey well explained long ago, however, that the
element, Abi (אבי), was not actually part of the man’s name, but was the
Hebrew for a ‘chief counsellor’, hence Huram (Hiram), the king’s “right-hand”
man (“Concerning Hiram ("Huram-abi"), the Phœnician
Craftsman”, JBL, Vol. 31, No. 4 (1912), pp. 151-155). Torrey would
conclude (p. 155):
To be sure, the reading ואבי gives a good
deal of trouble, and not a few have preferred to regard this as the original form of the ‘second element’ of the name, and
to suppose this founder of the Masonic Order to have been called “Huram abiu” … (or perhaps “Hiram abiu”).
But the
accepted translation of the passage is wrong. Here, again, the noun בא has the same meaning as before. He
who had been styled (by the Chronicler)
“the right-hand man” of the king of Tyre is now, with one of the Chronicler’s
own literary touches, termed “the right-hand man of King Solomon”.
[End of quote]
It seems that the so-called Hiram Abiff may be
regarded as more allegorical than real anyway According to http://www.ephesians5-11.org/hiram.htm for instance:
Although the most important
element of Masonic symbolism deals with the death, burial and resurrection of
Hiram Abiff, there is nothing in Scripture to support it. Masonic Grand Lodges
have stated that the account is not based upon fact, but rather is an allegory,
used to teach.
The ape of Christ?
Certainly, Evangelical Truth regards it as such (“Hiram Abiff – the
false christ of Freemasonry”: http://www.evangelicaltruth.com/hiramabiff.htm):
Freemasonry
substitute God’s perfect example and man’s only hope of salvation Jesus Christ
for a spurious fantasy figure called Hiram Abiff. Instead of using Christ as
its model of truth, fidelity and salvation it transfers its loyalty to this
phantom figure Hiram. Freemasonry teaches: “If we possess the same
painstaking fidelity as our Grand Master did in the hour of tribulation then
will our final reward be that which belongs to the just and perfect man.”
Hiram
here becomes Masonry’s Saviour and following in his footsteps is said to ensure
a glorious “final reward.” Rather than viewing Christ as the way, the truth and
the life Freemasonry looks to another – Masonry’s Hiram Abiff. The Lodge
practices ultimate deception here eradicating man’s great representative and
furnishing a foolish non-existence religious alternative.
Acts
4:12 says: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other
name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
Jesus
Christ is the sinner’s only hope! He is man’s only way.
The Lost Word
According
to the teaching of the 3rd Masonic degree (the Master Mason degree) there was a
mystical word which was only known to three people. These were King Solomon,
Hiram, King of Tyre and a fictional Masonic character called Hiram Abiff. These
three appointed fifteen craftsmen from among those working on rebuilding of the
Temple in Jerusalem to preside over the rest of the workers. The English
working of the lecture explains: “Fifteen Fellow-Crafts of that superior
class appointed to preside over the rest, finding that the work was nearly
completed, and that they were not in possession of the secrets of the Master’s
degree … conspired together to obtain them by any means … At the moment of
carrying their conspiracy into execution, twelve of the fifteen recanted”
(English ritual p. 68).
The
three remaining plotters (not to be confused with the three who know the
mystical word) continued undeterred. The degree records how they confronted
Hiram Abiff in the Temple and “demanded of our Grand Master the secrets
of a Master Mason, declaring to him that his death would be the consequence of
a refusal.” The degree continues, “Hiram Abiff, true to his
obligation, replied that those secrets were known only to three, and could only
be made known by consent of them all.” One of the scheming Craftsmen
struck Hiram with “a violent blow full in the middle of the forehead” whereupon
he sunk “lifeless at the foot of the murderer” (English ritual p. 69).
In
this fable, the Temple in Jerusalem was a temporary resting place for Hiram’s
remains after his death, Mount Moriah being his final interment. Hearing of the
news, King Solomon is said to have sent out some of his most trusted craftsmen
to find the body. In the English working of this Masonic degree there were 15
workmen sent out, in the American version 12 men were sent.
Whilst
there is a slight divergence in the story in relation to the number of
searchers, there is uniformity in the general story and the number of
perpetrators involved. To gain a good panoramic view of the Masonic degree we
will look at the English, American and Irish versions of it.
The
Master Mason degree tells us that the searchers travelled “in the
direction of Joppa, and were meditating their return to Jerusalem, when
accidentally passing the mouth of a cavern, they heard sounds of deep lamenting
and regret. On entering the cavern to ascertain the cause, they found three men
answering the description of those missing” (English ritual p. 74).
These transpire to be the three conspirators.
We
take up the story in the American version. Here the three rebels are heard to
exclaim:
First
Jubela: “O that my throat had been cut across, from ear to ear, my
tongue torn out, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea at low water
mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty four hours, ere I had been
accessory to the death of so good a man as our grand master Hiram Abiff.”
Second
Jubelo: “O that my left breast had been torn open, and my heart and
vitals taken from thence, and thrown over my left shoulder, carried into the
valley of Jeshoshaphat, and there become a prey to the wild beasts of the field
and the vultures of the air, ere I had conspired the death of so good a man as
our grand master Hiram Abiff.”
Third
Jubelum: “O that my body had been severed in two in the midst and
divided to the north and the south, my bowels burnt to ashes in the centre, the
ashes scattered by the four winds of heaven, that they might not the least
track or trace of remembrance remain among men or Masons of so vile a wretch as
I am” (p. 58).
The
three men are then “bound and led to Jerusalem, where King Solomon
sentenced them to that death which the perniciousness of their crimes so amply
merited” (English ritual).
In
the midst of discovering the assassins, the searchers notice the grave of Hiram
Abiff. Here the Masonic candidate is required to mimic Hiram. The initiate is
thus placed in a mock grave representing a corpse. The members try to resurrect
him with the Entered Apprentice grip, with no success. They then try to raise
him with the Fellow-Craft grip, again with no success. Next, all raise their
hands, and exclaim, “O Lord my God, I fear the master’s word is for ever lost.”
The master then announces, “As the master’s word is now lost, the first
word spoken after the body is raised, shall be a substitute for the master’s
word, until future generations shall find out the right” (USA ritual).
The
brethren then raise the member on the five points of fellowship which proves
successful. In the Master Mason degree, the candidate, in a supposed
resurrected state, is given the substitute word: “Mah-hah-bone”
– which signifies marrow in the bone.
Top
Masonic authority Albert Pike contends: “In my opinion, the Substitute or
covering Word was of three syllables, in order to hint to the Initiate that the
True Word was also trilateral.” The corpse is then said to be re-interred as
close to the Temple “sanctum sanctorum” (the holy of holies) as Mosaic law
would permit. It should not be overlooked at this juncture that the word which
these bodies are so keen to discover is a verbal word, not the written Word.
This will become clearer as this degree unfolds.
After
being lifted on the five points of fellowship in the third degree, the Mason
learns, “It is thus all Master Masons are raised from a figurative death
to a reunion with the former companions of their toils … Yet even by this
feeble ray you may perceive that you stand on the very brink of the grave into
which you have figuratively descended” (English ritual p. 70).
The
language here is very revealing. It shows the Masonic candidate identifying
with Hiram in his mythical death, burial and resurrection. Authorities within
the Lodge do not try to conceal this in their writings. Renowned Masonic writer
Albert Mackey states, “The Master Mason represents a man saved from the grave
of iniquity, and raised to the faith of salvation” (Manual of the Lodge).
Another
Masonic author WL Wilmshurst asserts that the Master Mason degree “inculcates
the necessity of mystical death and dramatizes the process of such death and
revival therefrom into newness of life … A Master Mason, then, in the full
sense of the term, is no longer an ordinary man, but a divinized man; one in
whom the Universal and the personal consciousness have come into union.
Obviously the quality of life and consciousness of such an one must differ
vastly from that of other men. His whole being is differently qualitated and
geared upon another centre” (The Meaning of Masonry pp. 140, 146).
Professor
of Scottish History at the University of St Andrews, David Stevenson in his
comprehensive work The Origins of Freemasonry tells us: “A central theme in
many initiation ceremonies was ritual death and rebirth, the transition
celebrated being regarded as of such fundamental importance that it involved
the candidate’s death in one state and his birth into another. Putting these
points together, it is likely that the seventeenth-century Masonic ritual
involved the candidate in some sort of ritual death, and subsequent raising from
the dead or being born again into the world of masonry through being lifted
from the grave in the five points of fellowship embrace” (p. 160).
Hiram usurps the place of Christ
Romans
6:3-6 says, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ
were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into
death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been
planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness
of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that
the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”
This
is the only religious blueprint that God recognises and has ordained. Salvation
involves our identification with Christ. Paul here uses metaphors to depict the
nature and significance of salvation. Baptism relates to our spiritual burial
with Christ in conversion – representing our dying to self; resurrection refers
to our rising with Him into newness of life. This passage reveals Christ’s role
as man’s sole Representative, and in particular outlines the victory He secured
for us through His glorious resurrection over sin, death and the grave. In
turn, it shows the Christian’s direct interest and spiritual involvement in
this great transaction. It is showing how Christ became our Substitute in His
atoning work.
Even
though the Lord was sinless, He was condemned on our behalf so that we could be
eternally free. He took our sin and guilt in full upon Himself. Finally, when
He rose again He did it in our stead. He therefore averted our deserved
destiny, which was eternal punishment. Sinners must hence appropriate their
part in that central resurrection in order to overcome eternal punishment. The
cross is the focal-point of the Christian faith; outside of it there is no
salvation. Colossians 2:10-14 and 3:1-4 repeat the great truth we see
represented in Romans chapter 6.
It
is clear that while Hiram (King of Tyre) assisted King Solomon at the building
of the first Temple, there is no mention whatsoever in Scripture of any “Hiram
Abiff.” This character is in fact a Masonic invention. Accordingly, there is no
teaching in Holy Writ relating to Hiram’s murder and discovery, as these secret
societies intimate. The teaching embodied in this story is extra-biblical.
Plainly the whole thing is one elaborate Masonic fabrication. This whole secret
society fixation with Hiram is a problematic area for evangelicals, as they see
Christ as man’s sole Redeemer and only perfect exemplar, whereas secret
societies seem to be always promoting Hiram as an alternative Christ.
Jesus
cautions us in John 10:1, “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold,
but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” He then goes
on to explain, “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved,
and shall go in and out, and find pasture” (John 10:9). If someone wants to
experience the favour of God and one day experience eternal bliss, they must
come exclusively through Christ. He is the way – the only way. Christ alone is
our access to God.
How
true and solemn the words of Scripture are: “For the time will come when they
will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears
from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
Dr.
Albert Barnes explains this matter, where he comments that “The word rendered
fable means properly ‘speech’ or ‘discourse’, and then fable or fiction, or a
mystic discourse. Such things abounded among the Greeks as well as the Jews,
but it is probable that the latter here are particularly intended. These were
composed of frivolous and unfounded stories, which they regarded as of great
importance, and which they seem to have desired to incorporate with the
teachings of Christianity … One of the most successful arts of the adversary of
souls has been to mingle fable with truth; and when he cannot overthrow the
truth by direct opposition, to neutralize it by mingling with it much that is
false and frivolous.” He further comments, “The ‘fables’ here referred to were
probably the idle and puerile superstitions and conceits of the Jewish rabbis.”
This
is exactly what Freemasonry has done. It has followed the same methodology and
has embraced the very same error. Now they teach it as truth. They have
deviated critically from the truth and text of Scripture, inserting erroneous
legends into several well-known scriptural references. They have distorted the
Bible account of the lives of key Old Testament Bible characters and have
attributed events to locations and time-periods that never actually happened.
They have blatantly altered the Word of God and accepted teaching that is alien
to Scripture. They have accepted, and secretly propagated dogma that is in
total conflict with the inspired text. ….
