Friday, February 23, 2024

Christ the King

“The desire for peace is certainly harbored in every breast, and there is no one who does not ardently invoke it. But to want peace without God is an absurdity, seeing that where God is absent thence too justice flies, and when justice is taken away it is vain to cherish the hope of peace. "Peace is the work of justice" (Is. xxii., 17). There are many, We are well aware, who, in their yearning for peace, that is for the tranquillity of order, band themselves into societies and parties, which they style parties of order. Hope and labor lost. For there is but one party of order capable of restoring peace in the midst of all this turmoil, and that is the party of God. It is this party, therefore, that we must advance, and to it attract as many as possible, if we are really urged by the love of peace”. This year (2023) the Catholic Church will celebrate the Feast of Christ the King on Sunday, the 26th of November. In 1957, I (Damien Mackey) made my First Holy Communion on the same feast-day, which occurred that year on the 27th of October. It is all about Jesus Christ. He is the Lord of Creation, the Lord of History, the Alpha and the Omega, to whom all things must be subjected. Pope Saint Pius X dedicated his 1903 encyclical letter, E Supremi to the theme: ON THE RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS IN CHRIST. Venerable Brethren, Health and the Apostolic Benediction. In addressing you for the first time from the Chair of the supreme apostolate to which We have, by the inscrutable disposition of God, been elevated, it is not necessary to remind you with what tears and warm instance We exerted Ourselves to ward off this formidable burden of the Pontificate. Unequal in merit though We be with St. Anselm, it seems to us that We may with truth make Our own the words in which he lamented when he was constrained against his will and in spite of his struggles to receive the honor of the episcopate. For to show with what dispositions of mind and will We subjected Ourselves to the most serious charge of feeding the flock of Christ, We can well adduce those same proofs of grief which he invokes in his own behalf. "My tears are witnesses," he wrote, "and the sounds and moanings issuing from the anguish of my heart, such as I never remember before to have come from me for any sorrow, before that day on which there seemed to fall upon me that great misfortune of the archbishop of Canterbury. And those who fixed their gaze on my face that day could not fail to see it . . . I, in color more like a dead than a living man, was pale for amazement and alarm. Hitherto I have resisted as far as I could, speaking the truth, my election or rather the violence done me. But now I am constrained to confess, whether I will or no, that the judgments of God oppose greater and greater resistance to my efforts, so that I see no way of escaping them. Wherefore vanquished as I am by the violence not so much of men as of God, against which there is no providing, I realize that nothing is left for me, after having prayed as much as I could and striven that this chalice should if possible pass from me without my drinking it, but to set aside my feeling and my will and resign myself entirely to the design and the will of God." 2. In truth reasons both numerous and most weighty were not lacking to justify this resistance of Ours. For, beside the fact that We deemed Ourselves altogether unworthy through Our littleness of the honor of the Pontificate; who would not have been disturbed at seeing himself designated to succeed him who, ruling the Church with supreme wisdom for nearly twenty six years, showed himself adorned with such sublimity of mind, such luster of every virtue, as to attract to himself the admiration even of adversaries, and to leave his memory stamped in glorious achievements? 3. Then again, to omit other motives, We were terrified beyond all else by the disastrous state of human society today. For who can fail to see that society is at the present time, more than in any past age, suffering from a terrible and deeprooted malady which, developing every day and eating into its inmost being, is dragging it to destruction? You understand, Venerable Brethren, what this disease is - apostasy from God, than which in truth nothing is more allied with ruin, according to the word of the Prophet: "For behold they that go far from Thee shall perish" (Ps. 1xxii., 17). We saw therefore that, in virtue of the ministry of the Pontificate, which was to be entrusted to Us, We must hasten to find a remedy for this great evil, considering as addressed to Us that Divine command: "Lo, I have set thee this day over the nations and over kingdoms, to root up, and to pull down, and to waste, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant" (Jerem. i., 10). But, cognizant of Our weakness, We recoiled in terror from a task as urgent as it is arduous. 4. Since, however, it has been pleasing to the Divine Will to raise Our lowliness to such sublimity of power, We take courage in Him who strengthens Us; and setting Ourselves to work, relying on the power of God, We proclaim that We have no other program in the Supreme Pontificate but that "of restoring all things in Christ" (Ephes. i., 10), so that "Christ may be all and in all" (Coloss. iii, 2). Some will certainly be found who, measuring Divine things by human standards will seek to discover secret aims of Ours, distorting them to an earthly scope and to partisan designs. To eliminate all vain delusions for such, We say to them with emphasis that We do not wish to be, and with the Divine assistance never shall be aught before human society but the Minister of God, of whose authority We are the depositary. The interests of God shall be Our interest, and for these We are resolved to spend all Our strength and Our very life. Hence, should anyone ask Us for a symbol as the expression of Our will, We will give this and no other: "To renew all things in Christ." In undertaking this glorious task, We are greatly quickened by the certainty that We shall have all of you, Venerable Brethren, as generous cooperators. Did We doubt it We should have to regard you, unjustly, as either unconscious or heedless of that sacrilegious war which is now, almost everywhere, stirred up and fomented against God. For in truth, "The nations have raged and the peoples imagined vain things" (Ps.ii., 1.) against their Creator, so frequent is the cry of the enemies of God: "Depart from us" (Job. xxi., 14). And as might be expected we find extinguished among the majority of men all respect for the Eternal God, and no regard paid in the manifestations of public and private life to the Supreme Will - nay, every effort and every artifice is used to destroy utterly the memory and the knowledge of God. 5. When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the "Son of Perdition" of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. "He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God" (II. Thess. ii., 2). 6. Verily no one of sound mind can doubt the issue of this contest between man and the Most High. Man, abusing his liberty, can violate the right and the majesty of the Creator of the Universe; but the victory will ever be with God - nay, defeat is at hand at the moment when man, under the delusion of his triumph, rises up with most audacity. Of this we are assured in the holy books by God Himself. Unmindful, as it were, of His strength and greatness, He "overlooks the sins of men" (Wisd. xi., 24), but swiftly, after these apparent retreats, "awaked like a mighty man that hath been surfeited with wine" (Ps. 1xxvii., 65), "He shall break the heads of his enemies" (Ps. 1xxvii., 22), that all may know "that God is the king of all the earth" (Ib. 1xvi, 8), "that the Gentiles may know themselves to be men"(Ib. ix., 20). 7. All this, Venerable Brethren, We believe and expect with unshakable faith. But this does not prevent us also, according to the measure given to each, from exerting ourselves to hasten the work of God - and not merely by praying assiduously: "Arise, O Lord, let not man be strengthened" (Ib. ix., 19), but, more important still, by affirming both by word and deed and in the light of day, God's supreme dominion over man and all things, so that His right to command and His authority may be fully realized and respected. This is imposed upon us not only as a natural duty, but by our common interest. For, Venerable Brethren, who can avoid being appalled and afflicted when he beholds, in the midst of a progress in civilization which is justly extolled, the greater part of mankind fighting among themselves so savagely as to make it seem as though strife were universal? The desire for peace is certainly harbored in every breast, and there is no one who does not ardently invoke it. But to want peace without God is an absurdity, seeing that where God is absent thence too justice flies, and when justice is taken away it is vain to cherish the hope of peace. "Peace is the work of justice" (Is. xxii., 17). There are many, We are well aware, who, in their yearning for peace, that is for the tranquillity of order, band themselves into societies and parties, which they style parties of order. Hope and labor lost. For there is but one party of order capable of restoring peace in the midst of all this turmoil, and that is the party of God. It is this party, therefore, that we must advance, and to it attract as many as possible, if we are really urged by the love of peace. 8. But, Venerable Brethren, we shall never, however much we exert ourselves, succeed in calling men back to the majesty and empire of God, except by means of Jesus Christ. "No one," the Apostle admonishes us, "can lay other foundation than that which has been laid, which is Jesus Christ." (I. Cor.,iii., II.) It is Christ alone "whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world" (Is. x., 36), "the splendor of the Father and the image of His substance" (Hebr.i., 3), true God and true man: without whom nobody can know God with the knowledge for salvation, "neither doth anyone know the Father but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal Him." (Matth. xi., 27.) Hence it follows that to restore all things in Christ and to lead men back to submission to God is one and the same aim. To this, then, it behoves Us to devote Our care - to lead back mankind under the dominion of Christ; this done, We shall have brought it back to God. When We say to God We do not mean to that inert being heedless of all things human which the dream of materialists has imagined, but to the true and living God, one in nature, triple in person, Creator of the world, most wise Ordainer of all things, Lawgiver most just, who punishes the wicked and has reward in store for virtue. 9. Now the way to reach Christ is not hard to find: it is the Church. Rightly does Chrysostom inculcate: "The Church is thy hope, the Church is thy salvation, the Church is thy refuge." (Hom. de capto Euthropio, n. 6.) It was for this that Christ founded it, gaining it at the price of His blood, and made it the depositary of His doctrine and His laws, bestowing upon it at the same time an inexhaustible treasury of graces for the sanctification and salvation of men. You see, then, Venerable Brethren, the duty that has been imposed alike upon Us and upon you of bringing back to the discipline of the Church human society, now estranged from the wisdom of Christ; the Church will then subject it to Christ, and Christ to God. If We, through the goodness of God Himself, bring this task to a happy issue, We shall be rejoiced to see evil giving place to good, and hear, for our gladness, " a loud voice from heaven saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ." (Apoc. xii., 10.) But if our desire to obtain this is to be fulfilled, we must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic of our time - the substitution of man for God; this done, it remains to restore to their ancient place of honor the most holy laws and counsels of the gospel; to proclaim aloud the truths taught by the Church, and her teachings on the sanctity of marriage, on the education and discipline of youth, on the possession and use of property, the duties that men owe to those who rule the State; and lastly to restore equilibrium between the different classes of society according to Christian precept and custom. This is what We, in submitting Ourselves to the manifestations of the Divine will, purpose to aim at during Our Pontificate, and We will use all our industry to attain it. It is for you, Venerable Brethren, to second Our efforts by your holiness, knowledge and experience and above all by your zeal for the glory of God, with no other aim than that Christ may be formed in all. 10. As to the means to be employed in attaining this great end, it seems superfluous to name them, for they are obvious of themselves. Let your first care be to form Christ in those who are destined from the duty of their vocation to form Him in others. We speak of the priests, Venerable Brethren. For all who bear the seal of the priesthood must know that they have the same mission to the people in the midst of whom they live as that which Paul proclaimed that he received in these tender words: "My little children, of whom I am in labor again until Christ be formed in you" (Gal. iv., 19). But how will they be able to perform this duty if they be not first clothed with Christ themselves? and so clothed with Christ as to be able to say with the Apostle: "I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me" (Ibid. ii., 20). "For me to live is Christ" (Phlipp. i., 21). Hence although all are included in the exhortation "to advance towards the perfect man, in the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (Ephes. iv., 3), it is addressed before all others to those who exercise the sacerdotal ministry; thus these are called another Christ, not merely by the communication of power but by reason of the imitation of His works, and they should therefore bear stamped upon themselves the image of Christ. 11. This being so, Venerable Brethren, of what nature and magnitude is the care that must be taken by you in forming the clergy to holiness! All other tasks must yield to this one. Wherefore the chief part of your diligence will be directed to governing and ordering your seminaries aright so that they may flourish equally in the soundness of their teaching and in the spotlessness of their morals. Regard your seminary as the delight of your hearts, and neglect on its behalf none of those provisions which the Council of Trent has with admirable forethought prescribed. And when the time comes for promoting the youthful candidates to holy orders, ah! do not forget what Paul wrote to Timothy: "Impose not hands lightly upon any man" (I. Tim. v., 22), bearing carefully in mind that as a general rule the faithful will be such as are those whom you call to the priesthood. Do not then pay heed to private interests of any kind, but have at heart only God and the Church and the eternal welfare of souls so that, as the Apostle admonishes, "you may not be partakers of the sins of others" (Ibid.). Then again be not lacking in solicitude for young priests who have just left the seminary. From the bottom of Our heart, We urge you to bring them often close to your breast, which should burn with celestial fire - kindle them, inflame them, so that they may aspire solely after God and the salvation of souls. Rest assured, Venerable Brethren, that We on Our side will use the greatest diligence to prevent the members of the clergy from being drawn to the snares of a certain new and fallacious science, which savoureth not of Christ, but with masked and cunning arguments strives to open the door to the errors of rationalism and semi-rationalism; against which the Apostle warned Timothy to be on his guard, when he wrote: "Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called which some promising have erred concerning the faith" (I. Tim. vi., 20 s.). This does not prevent Us from esteeming worthy of praise those young priests who dedicated themselves to useful studies in every branch of learning the better to prepare themselves to defend the truth and to refute the calumnies of the enemies of the faith. Yet We cannot conceal, nay, We proclaim in the most open manner possible that Our preference is, and ever will be, for those who, while cultivating ecclesiastical and literary erudition, dedicate themselves more closely to the welfare of souls through the exercise of those ministries proper to a priest jealous of the divine glory. "It is a great grief and a continual sorrow to our heart" (Rom. ix., 2) to find Jeremiah's lamentation applicable to our times: "The little ones asked for bread, and there was none to break it to them" (Lam. iv., 4). For there are not lacking among the clergy those who adapt themselves according to their bent to works of more apparent than real solidity - but not so numerous perhaps are those who, after the example of Christ, take to themselves the words of the Prophet: "The Spirit of the Lord hath anointed me, hath sent me to evangelize the poor, to heal the contrite of heart, to announce freedom to the captive, and sight to the blind" (Luke iv., 18-19). 12. Yet who can fail to see, Venerable Brethren, that while men are led by reason and liberty, the principal way to restore the empire of God in their souls is religious instruction? How many there are who mimic Christ and abhor the Church and the Gospel more through ignorance than through badness of mind, of whom it may well be said: "They blaspheme whatever things they know not" (Jude ii., 10). This is found to be the case not only among the people at large and among the lowest classes, who are thus easily led astray, but even among the more cultivated and among those endowed moreover with uncommon education. The result is for a great many the loss of the faith. For it is not true that the progress of knowledge extinguishes the faith; rather is it ignorance, and the more ignorance prevails the greater is the havoc wrought by incredulity. And this is why Christ commanded the Apostles: "Going forth teach all nations" (Matth. xxvii., 19). 13. But in order that the desired fruit may be derived from this apostolate and this zeal for teaching, and that Christ may be formed in all, be it remembered, Venerable Brethren, that no means is more efficacious than charity. "For the Lord is not in the earthquake" (III Kings xix., II) - it is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal. On the contrary, harm is done more often than good by taunting men harshly with their faults, and reproving their vices with asperity. True the Apostle exhorted Timothy: "Accuse, beseech, rebuke," but he took care to add: "with all patience" (II. Tim.iv., 2). Jesus has certainly left us examples of this. "Come to me," we find Him saying, "come to me all ye that labor and are burdened and I will refresh you" (Matth. xi., 28). And by those that labor and are burdened he meant only those who are slaves of sin and error. What gentleness was that shown by the Divine Master! What tenderness, what compassion towards all kinds of misery! Isaias has marvelously described His heart in the words: "I will set my spirit upon him; he shall not contend, nor cry out; the bruised reed he will not break, he will not extinguish the smoking flax" (Is. xlii., I, s.). This charity, "patient and kind" (I. Cor. xiii., 4.), will extend itself also to those who are hostile to us and persecute us. "We are reviled," thus did St. Paul protest, "and we bless; we are persecuted and we suffer it; we are blasphemed and we entreat" (I. Cor., iv., 12, s.). They perhaps seem to be worse than they really are. Their associations with others, prejudice, the counsel, advice and example of others, and finally an ill advised shame have dragged them to the side of the impious; but their wills are not so depraved as they themselves would seek to make people believe. Who will prevent us from hoping that the flame of Christian charity may dispel the darkness from their minds and bring to them light and the peace of God? It may be that the fruit of our labors may be slow in coming, but charity wearies not with waiting, knowing that God prepares His rewards not for the results of toil but for the good will shown in it. 14. It is true, Venerable Brethren, that in this arduous task of the restoration of the human race in Christ neither you nor your clergy should exclude all assistance. We know that God recommended every one to have a care for his neighbor (Eccli. xvii., 12). For it is not priests alone, but all the faithful without exception, who must concern themselves with the interests of God and souls - not, of course, according to their own views, but always under the direction and orders of the bishops; for to no one in the Church except you is it given to preside over, to teach, to "govern the Church of God which the Holy Ghost has placed you to rule" (Acts xx., 28). Our predecessors have long since approved and blessed those Catholics who have banded together in societies of various kinds, but always religious in their aim. We, too, have no hesitation in awarding Our praise to this great idea, and We earnestly desire to see it propagated and flourish in town and country. But We wish that all such associations aim first and chiefly at the constant maintenance of Christian life, among those who belong to them. For truly it is of little avail to discuss questions with nice subtlety, or to discourse eloquently of rights and duties, when all this is unconnected with practice. The times we live in demand action - but action which consists entirely in observing with fidelity and zeal the divine laws and the precepts of the Church, in the frank and open profession of religion, in the exercise of every kind of charitable works, without regard to selfinterest or worldly advantage. Such luminous examples given by the great army of soldiers of Christ will be of much greater avail in moving and drawing men than words and sublime dissertations; and it will easily come about that when human respect has been driven out, and prejudices and doubting laid aside, large numbers will be won to Christ, becoming in their turn promoters of His knowledge and love which are the road to true and solid happiness. Oh! when in every city and village the law of the Lord is faithfully observed, when respect is shown for sacred things, when the Sacraments are frequented, and the ordinances of Christian life fulfilled, there will certainly be no more need for us to labor further to see all things restored in Christ. Nor is it for the attainment of eternal welfare alone that this will be of service - it will also contribute largely to temporal welfare and the advantage of human society. For when these conditions have been secured, the upper and wealthy classes will learn to be just and charitable to the lowly, and these will be able to bear with tranquillity and patience the trials of a very hard lot; the citizens will obey not lust but law, reverence and love will be deemed a duty towards those that govern, "whose power comes only from God" (Rom. xiii., I). And then? Then, at last, it will be clear to all that the Church, such as it was instituted by Christ, must enjoy full and entire liberty and independence from all foreign dominion; and We, in demanding that same liberty, are defending not only the sacred rights of religion, but are also consulting the common weal and the safety of nations. For it continues to be true that "piety is useful for all things" (I. Tim. iv., 8) - when this is strong and flourishing "the people will" truly "sit in the fullness of peace" (Is. xxxii., 18). 15. May God, "who is rich in mercy" (Ephes.ii., 4), benignly speed this restoration of the human race in Jesus Christ for "it is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. ix., 16). And let us, Venerable Brethren, "in the spirit of humility" (Dan. iii., 39), with continuous and urgent prayer ask this of Him through the merits of Jesus Christ. Let us turn, too, to the most powerful intercession of the Divine Mother - to obtain which We, addressing to you this Letter of Ours on the day appointed especially for commemorating the Holy Rosary, ordain and confirm all Our Predecessor's prescriptions with regard to the dedication of the present month to the august Virgin, by the public recitation of the Rosary in all churches; with the further exhortation that as intercessors with God appeal be also made to the most pure Spouse of Mary, the Patron of the Catholic Church, and the holy Princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul. 16. And that all this may be realized in fulfillment of Our ardent desire, and that everything may be prosperous with you, We invoke upon you the most bountiful gifts of divine grace. And now in testimony of that most tender charity wherewith We embrace you and all the faithful whom Divine Providence has entrusted to Us, We impart with all affection in the Lord, the Apostolic Blessing to you, Venerable Brethren, to the clergy and to your people. Given at Rome at St. Peter's, on the 4th day of October, 1903, in the first year of Our Pontificate. PIUS X Kingdom of the Son: Scott Hahn Reflects on the Solemnity of Christ the King https://stpaulcenter.com/audio/sunday-bible-reflections/kingdom-of-the-son-scott-hahn-reflects-on-the-solemnity-of-christ-the-king/ Readings: 2 Samuel 5:1–3 Psalm 122:1–5 Colossians 1:12–20 Luke 23:35–43 ________________________________________ Week by week, the Liturgy has been preparing us for the revelation to be made on this, the last Sunday of the Church year. Jesus, we have been shown, is truly the Chosen One, the Messiah of God, the King of the Jews. Ironically, in today’s Gospel we hear these names on the lips of those who don’t believe in Him—Israel’s rulers, the soldiers, a criminal dying alongside Him. They can only see the scandal of a bloodied figure nailed to a cross. They scorn Him in words and gestures foretold in Israel’s Scriptures (see Psalm 22:7–9; 69:21–22; Wisdom 2:18–20). If He is truly King, God will rescue Him, they taunt. But He did not come to save Himself, but to save them—and us. The good thief shows us how we are to accept the salvation He offers us. He confesses his sins and acknowledges he deserves to die for them. And he calls on the name of Jesus, seeking His mercy and forgiveness. By his faith he is saved. Jesus “remembers” him—as God has always remembered His people, visiting them with His saving deeds, numbering them among His chosen heirs (see Psalm 106:4–5). By the blood of His cross, Jesus reveals His Kingship—not in saving His own life, but in offering it as a ransom for ours. He transfers us to “the kingdom of His beloved Son,” as today’s Epistle tells us. His kingdom is the Church, the new Jerusalem and House of David that we sing of in today’s Psalm. By their covenant with David in today’s First Reading, Israel’s tribes are made one “bone and flesh” with their king. By the New Covenant made in His blood, Christ becomes one flesh with the people of His kingdom—the head of His body, the Church (see Ephesians 5:23–32). We celebrate and renew this covenant in every Eucharist, giving thanks for our redemption, hoping for the day when we too will be with Him in Paradise. [End of quote] “In an era of resurgent nationalism, a belief in Christ as king guards against the ever-present and profoundly unchristian tendency to elevate politics over faith”. Jacob Lupfer Taken from: Sunday is the Feast of Christ the King. Here's why it still matters. (msn.com) Sunday is the Feast of Christ the King. Here's why it still matters. Religion News Service (RNS) — Lost in the shorter, busier, cooler days of late November, around Thanksgiving but before the Christmas rush, is an important Christian observance called the Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe. It was instituted in 1925 by Pope Pius XI in an encyclical titled “Quas Primas” and was Pius’ response to the increasing secularization and nationalism in the aftermath of World War I, which saw the fall of the royal houses of the Hohenzollerns, Romanovs, Habsburgs and the Ottoman Empire, all within four gruesome years. Thus Christ the King came into a seemingly extinguished Christendom with live memories of the Great War’s incomprehensible human carnage and epochal political upheaval. Then, as now, modern people were pulled in competing directions about where their loyalties lay. Pius’ encyclical drew richly on Old and New Testament teaching about divine kingship. In answer to the political chaos he offers the comfort of a king “of whose kingdom there shall be no end.” Not even the most ardent Protestant biblicist could object. Indeed, the feast day has taken on an increasingly ecumenical character and is better known nowadays by its Protestant name, Christ the King Sunday. Jesus’ kingship had been expounded long before “Quas Primas,” of course. Pius’ notions are captured in a well-loved (though controversial) hymn from the 1870s that proclaims, “Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane; But the church of Jesus constant will remain.” Others come to mind for anyone who has attended church for any time: “Come Thou Almighty King,” “Rejoice! The Lord Is King,” “Crown Him With Many Crowns,” “Praise, My Soul, the King of Heaven,” “All Glory, Laud, and Honor (to Thee, Redeemer, King).” That last was composed by Theodulf of Orleans in 820. So, is Christ king? Does the image matter to Christians anymore? It should. Christ the King offers both a hopeful and a sobering reminder to Christians whose loyalty to Jesus becomes subordinated to political ideology. In an era of resurgent nationalism, a belief in Christ as king guards against the ever-present and profoundly unchristian tendency to elevate politics over faith. Some would be tempted to impose the kingship of Christ by coercion or force of law. When adherents of Catholic Christian nationalist Nick Fuentes chanted “Christ is king!” on the National Mall the day the U.S. Capitol was overrun, it was palpably a cry against declining Christian cultural power, not for the Christian submission that Pius called for, a call that Christ reign in Christians’ hearts, minds, wills and bodies. Not that Christ the King doesn’t point up serious problems of pluralism and tolerance we have not solved yet. The first new British sovereign in seven decades awaits his coronation — his anointing in the name of the only king greater than he — amid global concern about whether democracy can prevail over anti-pluralistic nationalist and fascist-adjacent currents. King Charles’ reign has already invited questions about whether a Christian state even makes sense in the modern world and whether it can survive. The aftereffects of European empire now mean that the nations that invented the divine right of kings and put Christ above their own are subsuming diverse religious populations and institutions into their civic life. Charles’ new prime minister and the Conservative Party’s new leader, the Right Honorable Rishi Sunak, is a practicing Hindu and an icon for his nearly one million British co-religionists (and many millions more elsewhere). In advance of the G20 meeting in Indonesia earlier this month, the international organization held its first Religion Forum, the “R20.” Former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See Mary Ann Glendon attended as a delegate and observed “earnestness and palpable goodwill.” If there is an echo of the crusaders in “Christ the King,” there is no note of it in the way Charles and leaders of other historically Christian-dominated nations have resolved to move forward on faith. If religion, reduced to diplomatspeak, seems to pale a bit, it may be better that way. Our triumphalist line has not prevented the diminishment of faith in every sense. Which brings us to American evangelicals, who, regrettably tend not to observe Christ the King Sunday. This is one more instance in which they should unite more closely with global ecumenical Christianity. It’s not a theological problem — conservative evangelicals are inherently comfortable with “King Jesus” language. Rather, evangelicals, having grasped for political salvation, have the most to lose in submitting to a king that asks them to put off the trappings of power. In the end, Christ’s kingship is a spiritual matter for Christians. And that needs to be enough. (Jacob Lupfer is a political strategist and writer in Jacksonville, Florida. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

Thursday, February 22, 2024

A Nativity Shining Light of relevance to Israelite Magi

by Damien F. Mackey “Magi from the east came to Jerusalem”. Matthew 2:1 Part One: Were the Magi inspired pagans or Israelites? According to my recent article: Magi and the Persian factor (8) Magi and the Persian factor | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu the Magi of Matthew 2 definitely could not have been from Persia. Nor were they likely to have been, as I concluded, non-Israelites: “Now, from what has gone before, I think that there must be a very good chance that these, too [the Magi] - however many of them there may have been - must have been Israelites, albeit ‘enlightened’, rather than foreigners (gentiles), Persians or Nabateans”. Even the suggestion that the Magi were Zoroastrians may smack of a Hebrew element. Because, according to certain traditions, Zoroaster (Zarathustra) was actually the Jewish prophet Baruch: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2562-baruch —In Arabic-Christian Legend: The Arabic-Christian legends identify Baruch with Zoroaster, and give much information concerning him. Baruch, angry because the gift of prophecy had been denied him, and on account of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, left Palestine to found the religion of Zoroaster. The prophecy of the birth of Jesus from a virgin, and of his adoration by the Magi, is also ascribed to Baruch-Zoroaster (compare the complete collection of these legends in Gottheil, in "Classical Studies in Honor of H. Drisler," pp. 24-51, New York, 1894; Jackson, "Zoroaster," pp. 17, 165 et seq.). It is difficult to explain the origin of this curious identification of a prophet with a magician, such as Zoroaster was held to be, among the Jews, Christians, and Arabs. De Sacy ("Notices et Extraits des MSS. de la Bibliothèque du Roi," ii. 319) explains it on the ground that in Arabic the name of the prophet Jeremiah is almost identical with that of the city of Urmiah, where, it is said, Zoroaster lived. However this may be, the Jewish legend mentioned above (under Baruch in Rabbinical Literature), according to which the Ethiopian in Jer. xxxviii. 7 is undoubtedly identical with Baruch, is connected with this Arabic-Christian legend. As early as the Clementine "Recognitiones" (iv. 27), Zoroaster was believed to be a descendant of Ham; and, according to Gen. x. 6, Cush, the Ethiopian, is a son of Ham. It should furthermore be remembered that, according to the "Recognitiones" iv. 28), the Persians believed that Zoroaster had been taken into heaven in a chariot ("ad cœlum vehiculo sublevatum"); and according to the Jewish legend, the above-mentioned Ethiopian was transported alive into paradise ("Derek Ereẓ Zuṭṭa," i. end), an occurrence that, like the translation of Elijah (II Kings ii. 11), must have taken place by means of a "vehiculum." Another reminiscence of the Jewish legend is found in Baruch-Zoroaster's words concerning Jesus: "He shall descend from my family" ("Book of the Bee," ed. Budge, p. 90, line 5, London, 1886), since, according to the Haggadah, Baruch was a priest; and Maria, the mother of Jesus, was of priestly family. …. [End of quote] The captivating tale of the Magi has been absorbed by other ethnicities-religions. For, as I wrote in my article: Magi incident absorbed into Buddhism? (4) Magi incident absorbed into Buddhism? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu quoting Holger Kersten: “At last, in 1937, various expeditions were dispatched from Lhasa to seek out the holy child according to the heavenly omens, in the direction indicated. Each group included wise and worthy lamas of highly distinguished status in the theocracy. In addition to their servants, each group took costly gifts with them …”. Interestingly, too, “the holy child” was aged 2 (cf. Matthew 2:16). Which Israelites could the Magi have been? We know at least the when of the Magi, the beginning of AD time, reign of Herod. We also know the where, that they were “from the east” (Matthew 2:1-2): After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him’. If they were Israelites, as I believe they must have been, then what was their east? Presumably they, like the prophet Job, were living east of the River Jordan (Job:1:2): “[Job] was the greatest man among all the people of the East”. His home, traditionally, was in Hauran, Ausitis (Uz), where lived the bene qedem. In the Book of Tobit, it is called “Ecbatana” (Bathania) (Tobit 7:1), which is Bashan. According to Jewish Virtual Library, article “Kedemites or Easterners”: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kedemites-or-easterners KEDEMITES OR EASTERNERS (Heb. בְּנֵי קֶדֶם (benei kedem, bene qedem), adjective qadmoni, קַדְמֹנִי; Gen. 15:19) is a general designation for the peoples living on the eastern border of Syria and Palestine, from as far north as Haran (Gen. 29:1–4) to as far south as the northern end of the Red Sea (Gen. 25:1–6). In Israelite ethnology, all these peoples, and the Ishmaelites as well, who ranged from the border of Egypt to Assyria (i.e., the Middle Euphrates), and who included the inhabitants of Tema and Dumah (Gen. 25:12–18), were all related. Their center of dispersion was the Middle Euphrates region – called Aram-Naharaim (Gen. 24:10; Deut. 23:5), Paddan-Aram (Gen. 28:2, 5, 6, 7; 31:18 (or Paddan, Gen. 48:7)), "the country Aram" (Hos. 12:13), or simply Aram (Num. 23:7). From here Abraham and Lot moved to Canaan (Gen. 12:5). Lot eventually moved to Transjordan and became the ancestor of Moab and Ammon (Gen. 19:30ff.), while Abraham became the ancestor of all the other Kedemites, including the Ishmaelites, and of the Israelites as well. His son Isaac and the latter's son Jacob-Israel married wives from Abraham's original home-land, where Jacob even lived for 20 years. Hence the confession, "My father was a wandering/ fugitive Aramean who migrated to Egypt" (Deut. 26:5). The Israelites acknowledged all those peoples as their kin in contrast to the Canaanites. The Kedemites enjoyed among the Israelites a great reputation for wisdom. Not only does David quote a Kedemite proverb which he characterizes as such, but the wisdom of the Kedemites is rated only lower than Solomon's though higher than that of the Egyptians (I Kings 5:10), and Isaiah represents the Egyptian king's wise men as seeking to impress him by claiming descent from sages of Kedem (this, not "of old," is the meaning of qedem in Isa. 19:11). …. [End of quote] Now, given my re-dating of the Nativity to the time of Judas Maccabeus: Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus (5) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then we might expect to find the Magi amongst Transjordanian allies of the Maccabees. In I Maccabees 5 we read of Judas and his army crossing over the Jordan to deliver oppressed Jews, and there occurs the very interesting reference to “the land of Tobias” – that being (the Greek version of) the name of Job. Also mentioned here is Dathema, that is apparently right in Job-ian territory (Bashan): https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hdb/d/dathema.html DATHEMA ( 1Ma 5:9 ). A fortress in Bashan. It may perhaps be the modern Dâmeh on the S. border of the Lejâ district, N. of Ashteroth-karnaim. And so we read (vv. 9-23): Now the nations in Gilead gathered together against the Israelites who lived in their territory and planned to destroy them. But they fled to the stronghold of Dathema and sent to Judas and his brothers letters that said, ‘The nations around us have gathered together to destroy us. They are preparing to come and capture the stronghold to which we have fled, and Timothy is leading their forces. Now then, come and rescue us from their hands, for many of us have fallen, and all our kindred who were in the land of Tobias have been killed; the enemy have captured their wives and children and goods and have destroyed about a thousand persons there’. While the letters were still being read, other messengers, with their garments torn, came from Galilee and made a similar report; they said that the people of Ptolemais and Tyre and Sidon and all Galilee of the gentiles had gathered together against them “to annihilate us.” When Judas and the people heard these messages, a great assembly was called to determine what they should do for their kindred who were in distress and were being attacked by enemies. Then Judas said to his brother Simon, ‘Choose your men and go and rescue your kindred in Galilee; Jonathan my brother and I will go to Gilead’. But he left Joseph, son of Zechariah, and Azariah, a leader of the people, with the rest of the forces in Judea to guard it, and he gave them this command, ‘Take charge of this people, but do not engage in battle with the nations until we return’. Then three thousand men were assigned to Simon to go to Galilee and eight thousand to Judas for Gilead. So Simon went to Galilee and fought many battles against the nations, and the nations were crushed before him. He pursued them to the gate of Ptolemais; as many as three thousand of the nations fell, and he despoiled them. Then he took the Jews of Galilee and Arbatta, with their wives and children, and all they possessed and led them to Judea with great rejoicing. Note, moreover, the likeness to the Book of Job 1:16, 17 and 18: “While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said …”, to: “While the letters were still being read, other messengers, with their garments torn, came from Galilee and made a similar report …” (I Maccabees 5:14). Did the Magi, like Job’s first generation of children, perish amidst turmoil, or were they still to be found living amongst those “rejoicing” Jews whom Judas Maccabeus led safely “to Judea”? King Herod no longer cast his dark shadow over the kingdom. Perhaps some Magi had perished at the hands of Timothy, and some had survived. One can only guess at this stage. Tobias (Job) had benefitted from family inheritances (Tobit 14:13): “He took respectful care of his aging father-in-law and mother-in-law; and he buried them at Ecbatana …. Then he inherited Raguel’s estate as well as that of his father Tobit”. He, as Job, would see to it that all of his surviving children likewise benefitted (Job 42:12-15): The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers. Now, in my much shortened revision, there was not much time lapse at all between late Job and the Birth of Jesus Christ. There are common elements with Job and the Magi; the East; wisdom; purity of gold (e.g., Job 23:10); camels (presumably); expecting a Redeemer (Job 19:25); wealth. Job (Tobias), whose father, Tobit, had quoted the prophet Amos (Tobit 2:6), would surely have known the Messianic prophecy of Micah, who was this very Amos: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon (8) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Micah’s prophecy had famously been repeated to King Herod after the Magi had arrived in Jerusalem (Matthew 2:3-6): When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the Law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. ‘In Bethlehem in Judea’, they replied, ‘for this is what the prophet has written: “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel”.’ Of course the Magi already knew it, but they had gone directly to Jerusalem presuming (I think) that the royal Babe had now grown and would be ensconced in Jerusalem. Why did the Magi take so long to leave their home? Perhaps this was due to the turmoil of war that was raging in Israel at the time. Tobit (1:15) tells his son, Tobias, of the roads being unsafe for travel during the reign of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. Possibly, the Magi picked up (some of) their gifts for the Messiah in Jerusalem. It is interesting that the name of one of Job’s daughters, Keziah, or Cassia (42:14), has a close connection with frankincense and myrrh: https://www.earthsunessentials.com.au/product/cassia/ “Cassia features in folklore medicine often. It is even included in the Bible with Myrrh, Frankincense, and other oils and herbs”. Did Matthew (2:11) have Job 42:11 in the back of his mind when writing of the Magi’s visit to “the house”? All [Job’s] brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. … each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring. The road taken by the Magi from “the land of Tobias” to Jerusalem was not to be the way that these wise men (and women?) would return (Matthew 2:12): “… having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route”, avoiding Jerusalem this time. Intending to head NE, did they make a switch eastwards from the Central Ridge Route to the King’s Highway? Readers with a good knowledge of ancient biblical roads may be able to help out here. Conclusion The when of the Magi - the beginning of AD time, reign of King Herod ‘the Great’ (Maccabean era in my revision). The where of the Magi - they were “from the east” (Matthew 2:1-2), the Bashan region. The who of the Magi - certainly enlightened Israelites, likely family of the prophet Job. Part Two: What was the bright Star that the Magi saw? ‘Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him’. Matthew 2:2 While some of the best efforts to interpret the Magi Star have concluded, as we have read in: Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky (3) Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu that it was a planet, say, Venus or Jupiter, none, I think, has been able fully to explain it in its precise detail - for example, the fact that “it stopped” (Matthew 2:9): “After [the Magi] had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was”. At last I have found an article that, for me, makes proper sense of the Nativity Star. Matthew Ervin, in December 2013, explained it as the Glory of God. He uses the word, Shekinah, which, however, is not found in the Bible. I would prefer: Glory of the Lord (כְבוֹד יְהוָה), Chevod Yahweh (e.g. 2 Chronicles 7:1). Matthew Ervin writes: https://appleeye.org/2013/12/15/the-star-of-bethlehem-was-the-shechinah-glory/ The Star of Bethlehem Was the Shekinah Glory …. Theories as to what the Star of Bethlehem was are myriad. The usual answers look to celestial objects ranging from real stars to comets. Indeed, the inquiry has been so wide sweeping that virtually every object appearing in the sky has been posited as the Bethlehem Star. However, when Scripture is examined the identity of the Star is evident. The Greek ἀστέρα or astera simply identifies a shining or gleaming object that is translated as star in Matthew 2:1-10. The magi specifically referred to it as, “His star” (v. 2). In addition, the behavior of this Star alone is enough to discount any natural stellar phenomenon. The Star led the magi from the east to the west [sic] toward Jerusalem (vv. 1-4). Then the Star moved from the north to the south in Bethlehem (v. 9). The Star would disappear and then reappear before it finally came to hover over where Jesus was staying (vv. 7-9). If not a regular stellar object then what exactly was the Star of Bethlehem? The synoptic narrative in Luke’s Gospel provides an answer: And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. Luke 2:8-9 (ESV) The glory of the Lord here is a powerful example of the Shekinah Glory. This type of glory is a visible manifestation of God’s presence come to dwell among men. The Shekinah was often accompanied by a heavenly host (e.g. Ezek. 10:18-19) and so it was at the birth of Christ (Luke 10:13). The Shekinah Glory declared Messiah’s birth to the shepherds (Luke 2:8-11). The Star of Bethlehem likewise declared to the magi that Messiah had arrived (Matt. 2:9-10). No doubt this is because Matthew and Luke were describing the same brilliant light in their respective gospels. Although the Shekinah takes on various appearances in Scripture, it often appears as something very bright. This includes but is not limited to a flaming sword (Gen. 3:24), a burning bush (Ex. 3:1-5; Deut. 33:16), a pillar of cloud and fire (Ex. 13:21-22), a cloud with lightning and fire (Ex. 19:16-20), God’s afterglow (His “back”) (Ex. 33:17-23), the transfiguration of Jesus (e.g. Matt. 17:1-8), fire (Acts 2:1-3), a light from heaven (e.g. Acts 9:3-8) and the lamp of New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:23-24). It was the Shekinah Glory that dwelled in the Holy of Holies. It was last in Solomon’s temple but departed as seen by Ezekiel (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4-19; 11:22-23). Haggai prophesied that the Shekinah Glory would return to the temple in Israel and in a superior way (Hag. 2:3; 2:9). And yet it would seem that this never happened for the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Perhaps though the Shekinah did return. The Star of Bethlehem was the Shekinah Glory declaring the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ and residing in His person. And why not? The Messiah was prophesied to come as a star (Num. 24:17), and Jesus is called the, “bright morning star” (Rev. 22:16). …. [End of quote] It would be most fitting for the prophet Haggai to foretell the return of the Glory cloud. For Haggai (an abbreviated name) was my Habakkuk, the Akkadian name of Tobias (= Job) from his years spent in Nineveh: Haggai as Job late in his life? (10) Haggai as Job late in his life? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And his father, Tobit, appears to have foretold the return of God’s glory in chapter 13, as I noted in my article (following a 2013 piece): Saint John Paul II on Tobit (10) Saint John Paul II on Tobit | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I once read an intriguing article that valiantly attempted to identify Luke’s Shepherds, at the Nativity, with Matthew’s Magi. Upon examination, h0wever, the two entities appear to be really quite different – geographically speaking, for one. But what, I think, can now be identified as one, thanks to Matthew Erwin, is the Glory beheld by both the Shepherds and the Magi: … when Scripture is examined the identity of the Star is evident. The Greek ἀστέρα or astera simply identifies a shining or gleaming object that is translated as star in Matthew 2:1-10. The magi specifically referred to it as, “His star” (v. 2). In addition, the behavior of this Star alone is enough to discount any natural stellar phenomenon. The Star led the magi from the east to the west [sic] toward Jerusalem (vv. 1-4). Then the Star moved from the north to the south in Bethlehem (v. 9). The Star would disappear and then reappear before it finally came to hover over where Jesus was staying (vv. 7-9). If not a regular stellar object then what exactly was the Star of Bethlehem? The synoptic narrative in Luke’s Gospel provides an answer: And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. Luke 2:8-9 (ESV) …. The shining Glory God’s glory had been manifest, according to Matthew Erwin, in the Flaming Sword of Genesis; to Moses, in the Burning Bush, to the Exodus Israelites in the Pillar of Cloud; and to Israel, again, in the first Temple. But it had departed at the time of the Babylonian Exile and had not returned when the second Temple was completed. Matthew Erwin has really sewn this up: It was the Shekinah Glory that dwelled in the Holy of Holies. It was last in Solomon’s temple but departed as seen by Ezekiel (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4-19; 11:22-23). Haggai prophesied that the Shekinah Glory would return to the temple in Israel and in a superior way (Hag. 2:3; 2:9). And yet it would seem that this never happened for the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Perhaps though the Shekinah did return. …. The family of Job-Tobias knew, from what we now have written in Tobit 13, that the Glory of the Lord was going to return after the return from Exile. Job, as Haggai, now in his late old age, had advised the people, disappointed at the sight of the second Temple, that the Glory of the Lord would return. And return again it did, with the Birth of Jesus Christ, the New Temple, who would render obsolete the old stone Temple (pope Benedict XVI). In other words, the second Temple was only ever to be temporary, and would be dramatically replaced (destroyed even) by He who is the true Temple of God. The Shepherds saw the Light at close hand and were able to go directly to the stable. Their guiding Light conveniently stopped, just as the shining Cloud was wont to do during the Exodus (Numbers 9:17): “When the cloud moved from its place over the Tent, the Israelites moved, and wherever the cloud stopped, the Israelites camped”. The Magi saw it at a distance from Bethlehem. They had long been expecting it. Their ancestor, Tobit, had foretold its return, and his son, Haggai, confirmed it much later. The Magi, who - as descendants of Job, as I think - were undoubtedly clever and educated, did not really need, though, to be able to read the heavens and constellations (as Job almost certainly could, Job 38:31-33) to identify the Star. They were expecting it and they simply had to wait until they saw it. This was a manifestation for Israel, to be understood by Israel, which is a solid reason why I think that the Magi mut have been Israelites, not gentiles. The Nativity Star of relevance to Israel determines the ethnicity of Matthew’s Magi. Conclusion The when of the Magi - the beginning of AD time, reign of King Herod ‘the Great’ (Maccabean era in my revision). The where of the Magi - they were “from the east” (Matthew 2:1-2), the Bashan region. The who of the Magi - certainly enlightened Israelites, likely family of the prophet Job. The Star of the Magi - the Glory of the Lord. The resplendent Christ Child appeared again, with his holy Mother, at Pontevedra, Spain, 10th December, 1925 “elevated on a luminous cloud”. We read about it at: https://fatima.org/news-views/the-apparition-of-our-lady-and-the-child-jesus-at-pontevedra/ On July 13, 1917, Our Lady promised at Fatima: “If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved … I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays.” As Fatima scholar Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité tells us, this first secret of Our Lady “is a sure and easy way of tearing souls away from the danger of hell: first our own, then those of our neighbors, and even the souls of the greatest sinners, for the mercy and power of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are without limits.” …. Circumstances of the Apparition …. The promise of Our Lady to return was fulfilled in December 1925, when 18-year-old Lucia was a postulant at the Dorothean convent in Pontevedra, Spain. It was here, during an apparition of the Child Jesus and Our Lady, that She revealed the first part of God’s plan for the salvation of sinners: the reparatory Communion of the First Saturdays of the month. Lucia narrated what happened, speaking of herself in the third person – perhaps, in humility, to divert attention from her role in the event: “On December 10, 1925, the Most Holy Virgin appeared to her [Lucia], and by Her side, elevated on a luminous cloud, was the Child Jesus. The Most Holy Virgin rested Her hand on her shoulder, and as She did so, She showed her a heart encircled by thorns, which She was holding in Her other hand. At the same time, the Child said: “‘Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce It at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them.’ “Then the Most Holy Virgin said: “‘Look, My daughter, at My Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce Me at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console Me and announce in My name that I promise to assist at the moment of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess … receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep Me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to Me.’” The Great Promise and Its Conditions As Fatima author, Mark Fellows, noted: “The Blessed Virgin did more than ask for reparatory Communion and devotions on five First Saturdays: She promised Heaven to those who practiced this devotion sincerely and with a spirit of reparation. Those who wonder whether it is Mary’s place to promise eternal salvation to anyone forget one of Her illustrious titles: Mediatrix of all Graces.” …. Our Lady promises the grace of final perseverance – the most sublime of all graces – to all those who devoutly practice this devotion. The disproportion between the little requested and the immense grace promised reveals the great power of intercession granted to the Blessed Virgin Mary for the salvation of souls. Furthermore, this promise also contains a missionary aspect. The devotion of reparation is recommended as a means of converting sinners in the greatest danger of being lost. Much has been written on the Five First Saturdays devotion. Therefore, here I provide only a brief summary of the conditions. For more information, see The Magnificent Promise for the Five First Saturdays (Section III, pp. 8-16). …. 1. The First Saturday of five consecutive months: This request was the culmination of a whole movement of devotion, consistent with a series of papal decisions giving the forerunners of this new devotion: a. The 15 Saturdays in honor of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary (plenary indulgence granted by Pope Leo XIII, 1889). b. The 12 First Saturdays of the month (officially approved by Pope St. Pius X, 1905). c. The Devotion of Reparation on the First Saturdays of the month (new indulgences granted by Pius X, 1912). At Pontevedra we see two new elements: the reduction of the number of Saturdays required; and assurance of receiving at the moment of death “all the graces necessary for salvation,” instead of merely indulgences for the remission of punishment for sins already pardoned. Knowing our inconstancy, Our Lady asks for only five Saturdays – the number of decades on our Rosary. 2. Confession: Though the confession is not required to be made on the First Saturday itself … it is preferable – as far as possible – that it be made on a day close to the First Saturday. 3. Communion of Reparation: Frère Michel tells us: “The Communion of Reparation, of course, is the most important act of the devotion of Reparation. All the other acts center around it. To understand its meaning and significance, it must be considered in relation with the miraculous Communion of autumn 1916; already this Communion was completely oriented to the idea of Reparation, thanks to the words of the Angel.” …. 4. Recitation of the Rosary: In each of the six apparitions of 1917, Our Lady asked the children to pray the Rosary every day. 5. The 15-minute meditation on the 15 Mysteries of the Rosary: In addition to praying the Rosary, Our Lady asks for a separate 15 minutes of meditation on the Mysteries of the Rosary. But, as Sister Lucia has explained, not all 15 Mysteries need to be meditated upon each month. One may, by their choice, meditate on only some of the Mysteries each month. …. 6. The intention of making Reparation: As Sister Lucia has written, this condition is the principal one, and concerns the general intention with which all the other five conditions must be fulfilled. They must each be accomplished “in the spirit of Reparation” towards the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Without this general intention, without the desire to make Reparation to Our Lady to console Her, all these external acts are by themselves insufficient to obtain the magnificent promise of obtaining, at the moment of death, all the graces necessary for salvation. ….

Matthew, in his Genealogy, may not have omitted any king of Judah

by Damien F. Mackey “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. Mitch Chase A typical assessment of Matthew the Evangelist’s list of the Kings of Judah (1:7-11) – and one with which I would fully have agreed some time ago – is clearly laid out in this short piece (2013) by Mitch Chase: https://mitchchase.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/why-are-there-missing-kings-in-matthew-1/ Why Are There Missing Kings in Matthew 1? Matthew’s genealogy is edited, and by that I mean he has omitted certain kings in the second section (Matt 1:6b-11). Here are his fourteen generations represented by names: Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asaph, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amos, Josiah, and Jechoniah. In 2 Kings, it is clear that between the reigns of Joram and Uzziah are three other kings: Ahaziah (2 Kgs 8:25-29), Jehoash (2 Kgs 12:1-21), and Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:1-22). Matthew condenses the genealogy by omitting these three rulers. This is not historical ignorance or oversight. Matthew explains in 1:17 that he has a numerical design to the genealogy of 1:2-16. And since he wants to show fourteen generations, some kings have to be left out. Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah were all evil kings, so we’re not missing anything edifying. They were a trinity to ignore! Then between Josiah and Jechoniah (aka Jehoiachin), Matthew omits Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:31-34) and Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 24:1-2). Again the reason appears to be his literary design. The last reigning king in the Davidic line before the exile was not Jechoniah, however. It was Zedekiah, Jechoniah’s uncle. Zedekiah, then, is another Matthean omission. Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67). In summary, what were the omissions Matthew made in the second section of his genealogy (Matt 1:6b-11)? (1) Ahaziah (2) Jehoash (3) Amaziah (4) Jehoahaz (5) Jehoiakim (6) Zedekiah Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17). [End of quote] I would no longer accept this method of appraisal. Firstly, I have by now written several articles identifying Mitch Chase’s (2) Jehoash, and (3) Amaziah, as, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham. For example: Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah (7) Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And Mitch Chase’s (5) Jehoiakim, I have identified with Manasseh. For example: Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward (7) Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu As for Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah, (4) Jehoahaz, and (6) Zedekiah, I have until very recently given very little consideration to these names. But that has now changed, with a recent article of mine being about (4) Jehoahaz, appearing in Matthew’s list, so I suggest, under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin. Thus: Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? (7) Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And I hope shortly to do a similar type of resuscitation with Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah. As for Mitch Chase’s (6) Zedekiah, only a few days ago I had written this about him: I am not interested, since Matthew appears to have deliberately omitted him. For, as Mitch Chase himself has rightly noted: “Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67)”. As in the cases of Jehoahaz and Ahaziah, I am now having serious second thoughts as well about Zedekiah - that he may, in fact, be a duplicate of Manasseh (= Jehoiakim). While I am well aware that any attempt to identify Zedekiah as Manasseh/Jehoiakim will encounter some awkward chronological difficulties, there initially do appear to be certain promising points of comparison. For instance: - Original name, Manasseh, Mattaniah (for Zedekiah) has phonetic (if not meaning) similarity; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah reigned for 11 years; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah had Egypt as an ally; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah fully wicked; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah revolted against King Nebuchednezzar and went into captivity. So, rather than lean on the latter part of the quote above: “Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him”, I may now be more inclined to lean on its first part: “Why leave out the last king of Judah?” [Meaning Zedekiah – but who may not have been the last]. I am now disinclined, as well, to think that the number 14 was important to Matthew, as Mitch Chase thinks: “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. I now think that this may have been an artificial gloss later attached to the Genealogy. Whilst I am now inclined to believe that no Kings of Judah may have been omitted from Matthew’s genealogical list, I am of the opinion that there are some unwarranted duplications in the text as we now have it: (Tentatively) I think that Abijah was the same as Asa; (Confidently) I think that Hezekiah was Josiah; and that Amon (Haman) was Jehoiachin.

Friday, February 16, 2024

Abishag-Tamar-Shunammite

by Damien F. Mackey ‘O FAIREST AMONG WOMEN’. Song of Songs 1:8 She is a Shunammite (not a “Shulammite”. e.g., ‘belonging to Solomon’), simply because she, Abishag, came from the town of Shunem (in northern Israel). Shumen is the town where the prophet Elisha will be hospitably accommodated by a ‘Great Woman’, whose son Elisha would revive after the son had died (2 Kings 4:8-37). A tradition has it that this rich woman of Shunem was a sister of Abishag. But at least a century separates them. Despite Abishag’s living in Shunem, her name may not be Hebrew. According to John L. Mackenzie (The Dictionary Of The Bible, p. 4): “Abishag … [the] meaning [is] uncertain”. Now, at this same period of time - in King David’s old age (but he was then closer to 60 than to 70) - there was a girl the description of whom was similar to that of Abishag, one who, though, had a Hebrew name, “Tamar” (תָּמָר: meaning “date palm”, or “palm tree”). We learn about Tamar in 2 Samuel 13 (whereas we had encountered Abishag in I Kings). Tamar was, just like Abishag, “a virgin”, “beautiful”, and living “at the palace”. Thus 2 Samuel 13:1-2, 7: “… Tamar … beautiful … a virgin … Tamar at the palace”. Conclusion 1: Abishag, of uncertain name, is the same girl as Tamar (her given Hebrew name). Two different names, two different authors! Therefore, expect the possibility of this girl’s origins being at least partly non-Israelite. 2 Samuel 13:1 apprises us of the further detail that young Tamar was prince Absalom’s sister: “… Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David”. Now prince Absalom was, for his part, descended from kings both paternally and maternally. For, while King David of Israel was his father, he was born of David’s wife, Maakah (Maacah), who was the daughter of a (Canaanite?) king (I Chronicles 3:3): “[David’s] third [son], Absalom the son of Maakah daughter of Talmai [var. Tolmai] king of Geshur …”. However, when Hebrew uses relational words like “son”, ben (בֶּן), and “daughter”, bat (בַּת) - which we generally take in a literal sense - it may be that, in some cases at least, there is intended a less obvious meaning (e.g., in the first case, it could mean “grandson”, “official”). {Sir Alan Gardiner will lament, in Egypt of the Pharaohs (1960), the difficulty Egyptologists experience in trying to determine whether “son” literally means that, or something broader}. So, while we would immediately think to connect Tamar to Absalom as his blood sister, according to what we read in 2 Samuel 13:1, it may turn out to be not quite so simple as that. Some Jewish legends, in fact, will outright claim that Tamar was not Absalom’s sister – e.g., she may have been a foreign captive girl adopted into the family. Moses Maimonides, for his part (in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim), will write: “… Tamar was Absalom’s sister only from his mother [but she was not related to David or his son Amnon] …”. Or perhaps her mother, Maakah, was a concubine (Song of Songs 6:7-9): Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate behind your veil. There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens without number. My dove, my perfect one, is only one, the darling of her mother, flawless to her that bore her. (Song 6:7-9 RSV) Now, similarly as the girl was ‘sister’ to prince Absalom, so, too, was she ‘sister’ to Solomon (Song of Songs 4:9): ‘You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride’ (cf. Song of Songs 4:12). The common denominator in biblical descriptions of the girl, now as Abishag, now as Tamar, now as “the Shunammite”, is her incomparable beauty. When King David’s attendants “searched throughout Israel for a beautiful young woman and found Abishag”, it should not be expected that they had bothered to check out every single girl in the land of Israel, but probably only the noble (princess) ones. Likely the chosen girl was then living with her mother, Maakah, and with Absalom, in their family house (or palace) at Shunem. Her epithet would become from now on (Song of Songs 1:8): ‘O FAIREST AMONG WOMEN’. Now, this is similar in meaning to the Egyptian, HATSHEPSUT (“Foremost of Noble Women”), whose throne name in Egypt would be, in turn, very like the name, Maakah (Maa[t]-ka-[re]), without the inclusion of the pagan theophoric, re (the sun god, Ra): thus Maakah = Maa[t]ka-. Were these two women, Abishag and her ‘mother’, Maakah, ethnically Egyptians? And was the name of “uncertain” meaning, “Abishag”, a Hebraïsed attempt at “Ha[tshe]psut? (Gardiner calls her “Ḥashepsowe”)? Or, perhaps it was a combination of the Hebrew words, yapheh-ishshah (“beautiful” - “woman”)? Abishag = Yaph-isha? King David had determined, following Divine prompting (I Chronicles 28:6), for his son, Solomon, to succeed him afterwards on the throne of Jerusalem. This despite the fact that Solomon was by no means David’s oldest son. Before Solomon there were born at Hebron, for instance, those first six sons of David (each one by a different wife) (3:1-3): Amnon; Daniel; Absalom; Adonijah; Shephatiah and Ithream. Three of these first four, as well as Solomon himself, will be involved with the Shunammite, one way or the other. And two of these will die because of her. Abishag will even emerge, as consort of King David, as the veritable key to the kingdom (I Kings 2:22). The young Solomon was, for his part, madly in love with the Shunammite. No doubt, King David had promised her to Solomon along with the throne. The idyllic love between young prince Solomon and the Shunammite is reflected in the Song of Songs. But there is also much tension there, the pair having to endure a wait, opposition from hot-headed “brothers” (Song of Songs 1:6): “My mother’s sons [brothers] were angry with me …”. Then, into this halçyon pastoral scene of sun, vineyards, flocks, goats, shepherds, lillies, valleys and fruit trees - a veritable Garden of Eden - there will emerge a bitter and cunning “adviser”. Like the serpent of old. This dark character will bring down Amnon. And he will leave the Shunammite “desolate”. He will foment Absalom’s rebellion, forcing King David to leave his city of Jerusalem in tears. And he will finally, like Judas, commit suicide. He was Jonadab-Achitophel. Conclusion 2: Abishag, of uncertain name, the same as Tamar (her given Hebrew name), hailing from Shunem, was hence “the Shunammite” of King Solomon’s Song of Songs. Ethnically, she may have been Egypto-Canaanite, which thought will lead to the consideration (to be discussed later) that she was also Velikovsky’s Hatshepsut = “Queen of Sheba”. The virgin’s foreign-ness may perhaps be adduced further from what she will say in shocked reaction to Amnon’s attempt to seduce her based on advice from Jonadab. Here is the account of it, with King David now also making an appearance in the drama (2 Samuel 13:6-11): So Amnon lay down and pretended to be ill. When the king came to see him, Amnon said to him, ‘I would like my sister Tamar to come and make some special bread in my sight, so I may eat from her hand’. David sent word to Tamar at the palace: ‘Go to the house of your brother Amnon and prepare some food for him’. So Tamar went to the house of her brother Amnon, who was lying down. She took some dough, kneaded it, made the bread in his sight and baked it. Then she took the pan and served him the bread, but he refused to eat. ‘Send everyone out of here’, Amnon said. So everyone left him. Then Amnon said to Tamar, ‘Bring the food here into my bedroom so I may eat from your hand’. And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom. But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, ‘Come to bed with me, my sister’. Equally blunt would be Potiphar’s wife in her attempt to seduce the honourable Joseph (Genesis 39:7): ‘Come to bed with me!’ Tamar responds pleadingly to Amnon (2 Samuel 13:12-14): “‘No, my brother!’ she said to him. ‘Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you’. But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her”. No longer is she (Song of Songs 4:12): “A garden enclosed … a fountain sealed”? Regarding Absalom’s outstanding physical demeanour, we read of it in 2 Samuel 14:25-26: In all Israel there was not a man so highly praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the top of his head to the sole of his foot there was no blemish in him. Whenever he cut the hair of his head—he used to cut his hair once a year because it became too heavy for him—he would weigh it, and its weight was two hundred shekels by the royal standard. Some commentators will suggest that Absalom may have been, with all that hair, a Nazirite. But, as with Samson the Nazirite (Judges 13:7), Absalom’s hair will be his undoing. This particular era was one of obelisk (pillar) building (e.g., the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs). Correspondingly, we read (2 Samuel 18:18): “Prior to this Absalom had set up a pillar and dedicated it to himself in the King’s Valley, reasoning ‘I have no son who will carry on my name’. He named [it] after himself, and to this day it is known as Absalom's Memorial”. The contemporary pharaohs, too, had their “King’s Valley” (or “Valley of the Kings”). The reaction of King David and his two sons, Amnon and Absalom, to the rape of Tamar, is instructive. “When King David heard all this, he was furious” (2 Samuel 13:21). Still, he does nothing. “Then Amnon hated [Tamar] with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her. Amnon said to her, ‘Get up and get out!’” (v. 15). “Her brother Absalom said to her, ‘Has that Amnon, your brother, been with you? Be quiet for now, my sister; he is your brother. Don’t take this thing to heart’. …. And Absalom never said a word to Amnon, either good or bad; he hated Amnon because he had disgraced his sister Tamar’.” (vv. 20, 22) In part, these most unsympathetic reactions towards the female victim might be accounted for according to the ethics of the day, due to her possibly lowly status (e.g., as a foreigner or a commoner). One has only to consider the off-handed response by Jesus Christ himself, initially - and of his disciples - to the pleas of the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:23, 24, 26, 28): Jesus did not answer her a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, ‘Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us’. Then: ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel’. Then: ‘It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs’. But finally: ‘Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted’. And her daughter was healed at that moment’. Tamar fully anticipated what would be the result of Amnon’s assault, both for her and for him: ‘What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel’. And so, when he ordered her to: ‘Get up and get out!’, she answered emphatically: ‘No!’ (2 Samuel 13:16-19): ‘No!’ she said to him. ‘Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me’. But he refused to listen to her. He called his personal servant and said, ‘Get this woman out of my sight and bolt the door after her’. So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. She was wearing an ornate robe, for this was the kind of garment the virgin daughters of the king wore. Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the ornate robe she was wearing. She put her hands on her head and went away, weeping aloud as she went. Cf. Song of Songs 5:7: ‘The watchmen found me as they made their rounds in the city. They beat me, they bruised me; they took away my cloak, those watchmen of the walls!’ There was apparently no question of Tamar, now a damaged woman, returning to the palace of King David. He would be “furious” when he heard about the incident, but “furious” at whom? Heir Amnon would continue on for another “two years”. And so would his brother, Absalom. Their éminence grise adviser, Jonadab-Achitophel, would insinuate himself into being the power behind the throne. Tamar’s only place to go would be back to Shunem, to her adoring mother, but also to the calculating Absalom (2 Samuel 13:20): “And Tamar lived in her brother Absalom’s house, a desolate woman”. Whilst scholarly critiques, such as Bimson’s and Clarke’s, are to be encouraged, these two have succeeded in creating a vacuum - no appropriate “Queen”. SIS editor in 1997, Alasdair Beal, commenting on the effect that Bimson’s 1986 critique had had on readers, wrote: Probably few articles caused more disappointment in SIS circles than John Bimson’s 1986 ‘Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba’, which presented strong evidence and argument against Velikovsky’s proposal that the … queen who visited King Solomon was none other than the famous Egyptian female pharaoh. This removed one of the key identifications in Velikovsky’s Ages in Chaos historical reconstruction and was a key factor in the rejection of his proposed chronology by Bimson and others in favour of the more moderate ‘New Chronology’. It also took away what had seemed a romantic and satisfactory solution to the mystery of the identity and origins of Solomon’s visitor, leaving her once more as an historical enigma. …. So, can “Sheba” yet be identified with any part of Egypt and/or Ethiopia, where Josephus said that the biblical woman had ruled as queen? No - Egypt/Ethiopia will be figuring only at a later stage in our story. We can actually give a definitive answer to the question of the location of “Sheba”, based on the highest authority: JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. In what might initially seem like a very vague statement (Luke 11:31): ‘The Queen of the South … came from the ends of the earth …’, Jesus is here providing the most precise co-ordinates. This text offers us an excellent example of why the Bible needs to be read in its proper context, and not superficially, in a literal Western manner. Creationists are wont to read phrases like “the earth” (Greek tes ges, της γης) in a global sense. Though Patrick Clarke, himself a Creationist, will limit his horizons geographically, in this case, by suggesting that the biblical queen may have been from Yemen. (Logically, should he have located “Sheba” somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere?). However, for the Israelite audience which Jesus was addressing, “the earth” was “the land”, the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel). Now, the “ends” (or borders) of the land of Israel were Dan (North) and Beersheba (South). For example I Samuel 3:20: “And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba recognized that Samuel was attested as a prophet of the LORD”. The “end” to which Jesus is referring, “the South”, is obviously, then, Beersheba. “The south” is a common biblical term for the Negev (desert). So, we are here being unerringly directed by Jesus to the chief town, Beersheba, that stands at the southern border of Israel, in the Negev – and known as “the Capital of the Negev”. The Old Testament fully supports this geography, giving the name of the Queen’s realm as “Sheba”, which is just another name for Beersheba (Joshua 19:2): “… Beersheba (or Sheba) …”. And, given the ancient city’s strategic location of intersecting trade routes, we ought not be surprised to read that the Queen of (Beer)sheba travelled to Jerusalem with so richly-laden a camel train as she did (I Kings 10:2, 10), and that: “Never again were so many spices brought in as those the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon”. But that is still a bit in the future. Why were her ‘brothers … angry with’ the Shunammite? (Song of Songs 1:6) Because, as she continues: ‘… my own vineyard I had to neglect’. Professor Claude Mariottini concurs with others that this is a reference to her virginity, though he wrongly adds “that she gave herself sexually” to her lover: “The reason for the punishment her brothers inflicted on her was because she did not keep her own vineyard … probably a reference to her virginity, that is, that she gave herself sexually to her shepherd lover and as a result her brothers punished her for her indiscretion”. https://claudemariottini.com/2022/08/22/the-shulammite-black-and-beautiful-or-black-but-beautiful/ We know, though, that she was entirely guiltless in this affair - she having firstly obeyed the order of King David to attend the ailing Amnon, and then having been taken against her will by Amnon. Solomon, too, in fact, “lovesick” as Amnon had been, will plead for the Shunammite’s attention (Song of Songs 2:5): ‘Sustain me with raisin cakes, refresh me with apples, because I am lovesick’. When the Shunammite was at home, a veritable prisoner of Absalom and her other brothers, young Solomon was constrained to creep around the place surreptitiously, “behind the wall”, “gazing”, “peering through the lattice” (Song of Songs 2:8-9): ‘Listen! My beloved! Look! Here he comes, leaping across the mountains, bounding over the hills. My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag. Look! There he stands behind our wall, gazing through the windows, peering through the lattice’.

King Saul a type like Egypt’s Chenephres

by Damien F. Mackey The biblical estimation of Saul appears to have much in common with the way Saul’s son, Jonathan, viewed his father: ‘My father has made trouble for the country’. The prophet Jeremiah will place Samuel on a level similar to Moses, as a powerful intercessor between God and the people of Israel (Jeremiah 15:1): “Then the LORD said to me: ‘Even if Moses and Samuel were to stand before me, my heart would not go out to this people. Send them away from my presence! Let them go!’” Jeremiah’s contemporary, Ezekiel, will speak similarly regarding three other great men (Ezekiel 14:14): ‘… even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD’. (Cf. Ezekiel 14:20) And, indeed, when the people of Israel demanded a king to rule over them, to replace the aged Samuel, the great prophet will remind them of what this very Moses had said about what a king would do to them (I Kings 18:10-18; cf. Deuteronomy 17:14-17): Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.” But the sage warnings of the priests Moses and Samuel were not heeded, and so the Lord agreed to the wish of the people (vv. 19-22): But the people refused to listen to Samuel. ‘No!’ they said. ‘We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles’. When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. The LORD answered, ‘Listen to them and give them a king’. Be careful what you ask for. King Saul like Chenephres King Saul, the most reluctant father-in-law of David (I Samuel 18:27), reminds me very much of Chenephres, the foster father-in-law of Moses, whom I have amalgamated into Chephren-Sesostris, the husband of Meresankh, the Egyptian foster-mother (traditionally Merris) of Moses himself. Perhaps the Great Sphinx which he (Chephren) constructed is a fitting image for this Chenephres, as it may also be for the enigmatic King Saul. Consider how Saul, incandescently jealous of the young David (I Samuel 18:5-9), tried to get rid of him by assigning him impossibly dangerous military tasks (vv. 17-30), only later to welcome back and embrace him (19:1-7), but then, again, seeking to kill him (vv. 8-22). And that is exactly the kind of jealous and murderous attitude we find in the behaviour of Chenephres towards Moses, as we read in the following: The author then reverts to the narrative of an adventure tale—and an altogether novel one. Chenephres the Pharaoh, jealous of Moses’ accomplishments, took a dislike to him, and sent him off to war against the Ethiopians with a makeshift band, expecting to see the last of him. But Moses proved to be as successful a military hero as a bringer of culture. He conducted a ten year war of epic proportions and not only returned victorious but won the hearts of the Ethiopians themselves, even introducing them to the fine art of circumcision. …. That bit of whimsy gives a clue to Artapanus’ mindset: a writer of some mischief. The wicked Chenephres pretended to welcome Moses’ homecoming, even asking his advice on the best breed of oxen to plow the fields, whence came the origin of Apis worship among the Egyptians. But, all the while, he plotted against the hero. He appointed assassins, most of whom declined the task, and the one who agreed was duly overpowered by the swifter and keener Moses. The adventures accumulate. A sojourn in Arabia brought Moses to the attention of an Arab leader whose daughter he married but whose importunings to march on Egypt he declined out of regard for his countrymen. Moses returned to his homeland only when the conniving Chenephres perished of elephantiasis, a fitting end, for he was the initial victim of that disease. …. {This accords perfectly with my revision that the Twelfth Dynasty (same as the Fourth) died out while Moses was still in Midian} Just as Chenephres would hound Moses out of Egypt and into the foreign Midian, when seeking to kill him, so would David be forced to flee a murderous Saul, to take refuge amongst, of all people, the hated Philistines (I Samuel 27). King Saul was, like Chenephres, highly superstitious, and would even have recourse in the end to witchcraft (I Samuel 28). He was also clearly a man who needed the support of the crowd. http://www.growthingod.org.uk/saul-and-david.htm Saul defeated the Amalekites and liberated a vast area from their control, but, under pressure from his people, he spared Agag their king and kept all the best of their livestock. He was disregarding the plain commandment of God. God revealed this to Samuel who went to face Saul with his sin. Saul greeted him with the words: “Blessed are you of the Lord! I have carried out the command of the Lord” (1 Sam 15:13). In the ensuing interview we have Samuel’s well-known words: “Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry” (1 Sam 15: 22, 23). Saul’s reply reveals his heart: “I have sinned; I have indeed transgressed the command of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and listened to their voice” (24). Then he says, “I have sinned; but please honour me before the elders of my people and before Israel, and go back with me, that I may worship the Lord your God” (30). The primary motivation in Saul’s life was the crowd. If he was with a crowd of prophets, he could prophesy. If the crowd was deserting him in battle, he could not trust God. If the crowd wanted the spoils of war, he could not stand in their way. Even now he was rejected by God, the crowd must not know it. This also was the underlying motivation at Babel. “Let us make for ourselves a name,” they said, “lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth” (Gen 11: 4). They found security in a crowd, while they ignored God. Multitudes of people today will only follow where the majority leads”. And the biblical estimation of Saul appears to have much in common with the way Saul’s son, Jonathan, viewed his father: ‘My father has made trouble for the country’ (I Samuel 14:29). Famously, Jonathan will side secretly with his beloved friend, David, against the vengeful Saul. King Saul’s despicable nature was perhaps most evident in his treatment of his son, Jonathan, one of the most noble characters of the Old Testament, and of the mother who bore him (I Samuel 20:30): “Saul boiled with rage at Jonathan. ‘You stupid son of a whore!’ he swore at him. ‘Do you think I don’t know that you want him to be king in your place, shaming yourself and your mother?’” Not only was the life of David constantly at risk with the ever changeable King Saul, but the life of Jonathan also, without whose assistance David would not have survived. No wonder their two hearts were knit close together in friendship. Dr. I. Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos series), a Jewish nationalist, tended to favour types like Saul and Ahab over the likes of Moses (whom he hardly mentions) and Isaiah. On this, see Martin Sieff’s brilliant article, “Velikovsky and His Heroes” (SIS Review v5 No. 4, 1984). One wonders what Jonathan might have told Dr. Velikovsky about the latter’s great hero, Saul, had the two of them had the opportunity to discuss this first king of Israel. Saul and Ahab, not David and Elijah, were the real ‘troublers of Israel’ (I Kings 18:17).

Monday, February 12, 2024

Original Baghdad was Jerusalem

by Damien F. Mackey “Built of the baked brick, the city’s walls have long since crumbled, leaving no trace of Madinat-al-Salam today. …. According to the legend narrated by Al-Tabari, the four iron doors in the main wall, and one in Al-Mansur’s palace, were originally crafted for King Solomon by shaytans, or demons”. Polina Ignatova Introduction When an important ancient personage, or location, apparently leaves virtually no visible or recoverable trace, or none at all, my inclination is to search for an alter ego (or more) for that person, or a revised geography for that location. In some cases, an important ancient character is lacking any depictions or statuary: More ‘camera shy’ ancient potentates (6) More 'camera shy' ancient potentates | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Or it might be, as in the case of Old Kingdom Egypt, some missing architecture: Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples (6) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The famed capital city of Akkad (Agade) is just completely missing: My road to Akkad (6) My road to Akkad | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and its related kingdom of Akkad is missing an appropriate archaeology: Akkadian dynasty famous but archaeologically impoverished, Ur III dynasty, un-heralded but lavishly documented (4) Akkadian dynasty famous but archaeologically impoverished, Ur III dynasty, un-heralded but lavishly documented | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu See also somewhat similarly to this: Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology (4) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And one may find various other similar examples and configurations. It is all enough to remind one of what G. K. Chesterton once so famously remarked about evolution: “All we know of the Missing Link is that he is missing – and he won't be missed either.” Ancient Baghdad Ancient Baghdad clearly, I think, fits into more than one of the ‘missing’ categories. I am not, of course, including here the modern city of Baghdad, one of the largest and most important cities today of the Moslem world. After a World War III, towards which the world is sadly hastening, archaeologists of the future will nevertheless be able to find abundant evidence for the current city of Baghdad. In the case of ancient Baghdad, however: - Some of its presumed Caliphs have no visible representation. - Its archaeology is completely missing. - Plus some, at least, of its most famed characters can be shown to have been fictitious. Polina Ignatova here gives a typical account of ancient Baghdad: https://www.epoch-magazine.com/post/the-city-of-peace-reconstructions-of-the-round-city-of-baghdad The City of Peace: Reconstructions of the Round City of Baghdad Polina Ignatova | Lancaster University ‘I mention Baghdad first of all because it is the heart of Iraq, and, with no equal on earth either in the Orient or the Occident, it is the most extensive city in the area, in importance, in prosperity, in abundance of water, and in healthful climate. It is inhabited by the most diverse individuals, both city people and country folk; people emigrate to it from all countries, both near and far; and everywhere there are men who have preferred it to their own country' Muslim geographer Ahmad al-Ya'qubi wrote in the ninth century. While today Baghdad is predominantly associated with war, tragedy, and grief, the Baghdad of the eighth and ninth centuries, also known as Madinat-al-Salam, or the City of Peace, was one of the most advanced cities in the world. Built of the baked brick, the city’s walls have long since crumbled, leaving no trace of Madinat-al-Salam today. Yet it is important to attempt to reconstruct the city, which once was a major architectural achievement of its time, both in terms of planning and scale. For historians, reconstructing the city on the basis of the preserved descriptions, Madinat-al-Salam represents a perfect case study for Muslim urbanism, while modern architects, writers, and artists draw inspiration from its unique cityscape. …. Madinat-al-Salam was founded by the second Abbasid Caliph Abu Ja’far Abdallah ibn Muhammad al-Mansur in 762 CE, with the aim of moving the capital closer to Khurasan – the region which had supported the Abbasids in their struggle for power against the previous dynasty – the Umayyads. It was comprised of three perfectly round walls – the outer, the main, and the inner – pierced by four gates, with the Caliph’s residence in the middle. According to the Persian historian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, before the constructions began, Caliph Al-Mansur commanded to draw the outline of the city in ashes. After walking around the city’s imaginary streets and courtyards, Al-Mansur ordered cotton seeds and oil spread along the outline, which was then set on fire for the Caliph to see the city as a whole. …. Al-Mansur was only the second Caliph of the Abbasid dynasty. The city’s outline was modelled on ancient Persian cities, such as Gur (modern Firuzabad), reflecting his ambitions to retain and consolidate power. It is no coincidence that the new city was also located near Ctesiphon – the former capital of the Sasanian empire. Even the building materials were to be obtained from the demolition of Ctesiphon’s palace of Khursaw, but the cost of breaking down the palace walls and then transporting the stone and brick upstream proved to be too high. …. Madinat-al-Salam was clearly an Islamic place. Its name was a reminder of a Qur’anic expression (6:127) Dar-el-Salam, ‘the House of Peace’, which refers to Paradise (the name Baghdad comes from the village situated on the site chosen for the new capital). The city’s Kufa gate (South-West) pointed at Kufa, the starting point for pilgrimages, and more importantly, at Mecca. The other three gates were located at regular intervals from Kufa gate and were named by the Caliph himself according to the destinations for which they gave access. The gates were high enough to allow a horseman carrying a banner or a lance to come through, and had double iron doors, so heavy that several men were needed to open and close them. According to the legend narrated by Al-Tabari, the four iron doors in the main wall, and one in Al-Mansur’s palace, were originally crafted for King Solomon by shaytans, or demons. …. In the centre of the city, protected by the inner wall, stood, side by side, the palace of the Caliph, also known as the Golden Gate, and the Great Mosque. The palace was crowned by a green dome with a weathervane in the shape of a horseman visible from all quarters of Baghdad. It was believed that the horseman was endowed with magical powers and pointed his lance in the direction from where the enemies of the Caliph were going to appear. Later the figure and the green dome were destroyed by a thunderbolt. On the North-West side were the barracks for the Caliph’s horse-guards and a portico, presumably occupied by the palace governor. The space surrounding these buildings was kept free of houses, but further away stood the palaces of the Caliph’s children, his servants’ dwellings, and public offices. Al-Mansur ordered that no one except himself could enter the central area riding, so everyone else had to leave their horse or mule outside of the inner wall, to the great annoyance of the Caliph’s frail and gout-ridden uncles. One account claims that Al-Mansur also built a secret passage leading to beyond the city walls to provide escape in case of a siege. The gatehouses in the main wall – the sturdiest of the three – were also topped with green cupola supported by the columns of teak wood. At the top story of each gatehouse, there was a chamber overlooking the city. The one above the Khurasan gate was a favourite resting place of Caliph Al-Mansur. On one occasion, while the Caliph was there an arrow, bearing a warning, was shot up and fell by his feet. Al-Mansur had nothing to fear though – it was believed that no Caliph would die in Baghdad. Modern historical reconstructions of the Round City of Baghdad range from maps to 3D models and Minecraft cityscapes, while architectural artistic re-interpretations of Madinat-al-Salam demonstrate the importance and vibrancy of its legacy today. Indeed, for centuries the round shape remained the mark of wealth, prestige, and hopes for peace and prosperity. In 1804 French architect Claude Nicolas Ledoux published the project for a round ‘ideal city’ of Chaux – the constructions, however, never began. The one modern round city project which was completed is Apple Park, constructed in the shape of a ring. In his presentation for the Cupertino City Council, Steve Jobs did not give any particular reasons as to why he had chosen the circle structure except that ‘this is not the cheapest way to build something’. Like Madinat-al-Salam at the time of its prime, Apple Park boasts the most advanced structure of its time. To date, it is the world’s biggest naturally ventilated building covered with the largest panels of curved glass. …. its revealed name – ‘Paradis’ – clearly echoes Madinat-al-Salam’s aspirations to be compared to Dar-al-Salam, or Heaven. …. The echoes of the Round City can also be found in modern fantasy novels. The Daevabad Trilogy, by S. A. Chakraborty, brings together many of the literary and folk elements of the Middle Eastern culture. The titular city of Daevabad is described as a perfectly round structure, surrounded by a wall and divided into quarters. As well as being integral to the divisions found in the plot, it also reflects the early Muslim way of building cities with different quarters belonging to different Arab tribes. …. While no tangible traces have yet been discovered of the eighth-century Madinat-al-Salam, and as it is currently impossible to conduct excavations in Baghdad, one can only hope that one day material evidence may be discovered. Yet its legacy lives on – through academic works and state emblems, utopian aspirations and ambitious architectural projects, as well as fictional places, the Round City of Baghdad survives in our collective imagination as a symbol of power, prosperity, and peace. [End of quote] ---------------------- The first thing to notice about ancient Baghdad is that it has left “no tangible traces”: “Built of the baked brick, the city’s walls have long since crumbled, leaving no trace of Madinat-al-Salam today”. “While no tangible traces have yet been discovered of the eighth-century Madinat-al-Salam, and as it is currently impossible to conduct excavations in Baghdad, one can only hope that one day material evidence may be discovered”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Baghdad “The Round City was partially ruined during the siege of 812–813, when Caliph al-Amin was killed by his brother,[a] who then became the new caliph. It never recovered;[b] its walls were destroyed by 912,[c] nothing of them remains,[d][6] there is no agreement as to where it was located.[7]” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3899594 “Finally, in 1260, the Muslim Mamluks were able to defeat the Mongols in the battle of ‘Ain Jalut’ in northern Palestine. However, the total destruction of the Islamic empire was completed in 1258 through the capture and raze of Baghdad by the Mongols and brought an end to the ‘Golden Age’ of Islam. The subversive impact continued for centuries and Muslims, never could get back to their lost glories. Muslims had remained subdued for centuries and their economy and culture were at ruins. The ramifications were non-repairable, irreplaceable and insurmountable as the centre for education and scientific research was being shifted to the west”. Next point is that ancient Baghdad was supposedly built by close descendants of the Prophet Mohammed, who is not in fact a genuine historical character, but a fictitious composite: Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History (8) Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Neither, then, can the stories surrounding Mohammed and his supposed descendants be considered as historical. As I quoted in my article: King Solomon and Suleiman (8) King Solomon and Suleiman | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu …. The Persian-looking Islamic coins are of course believed to date from the time of Umar (d. 664), one of the “Rightly-guided Caliphs” who succeeded Muhammad and supposedly conquered what became the Islamic Empire. Yet it has to be stated that there is no direct archaeological evidence for the existence either of Umar or any of the other “Rightly-guided” Caliphs Abu Bakr, Uthman or Ali. Not a brick, coin, or artifact of any kind bears the name of these men. Archaeologically, their existence is as unattested as Muhammad himself. …. [End of quote] Equally dubious, however, are the supposed intellectual luminaries of the Golden Age of Abassid Baghdad as I exposed in my article: Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism (8) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Israelite kings, David and Solomon, frequently intrude into the legends of Charlemagne and Suleiman, both considered to be ‘a new David’ and ‘a new Solomon’. Now, here we find attributed to King Solomon some early architecture of ancient Baghdad: “According to the legend narrated by Al-Tabari, the four iron doors in the main wall, and one in Al-Mansur’s palace, were originally crafted for King Solomon by shaytans, or demons”. Now Baghdad, originally called Madinat-al-Salam, “City of Peace”, has the very same meaning as Jerusalem, “City of Peace”. The name Baghdad itself can possibly mean “Bestowed by God”, another perfectly fitting appellation for Jerusalem. Emperor Charlemagne’s fantasy Arabian Nights ally, Harun al-Raschid, based on the biblical Hiram, supposedly built the House of Wisdom (Bayt al-Hikmah) in Baghdad. Likewise, thanks to the expertise of Hiram, King Solomon was able to have erected in Jerusalem his palace and the Temple of Yahweh, true centres of wisdom. Baghdad was also regarded, like Jerusalem, as being the centre of the ancient world (cf. Ezekiel 5:5). It, too, like Jerusalem, had a Golden Gate. I conclude that the completely missing ancient city of Baghdad, with its lack of an appropriate archaeology, and the pseudo Islamic history and intellectualism that accompanies its ghostly self, was a fable based upon wise King Solomon’s Jerusalem and the Temple of Yahweh.