While studying Scripture I came upon a historical fact that intrigued me, one that suddenly took a few variables I had held more or less in a loose jumble throughout my life, and instantly shook them into astonishing order.
In the first century B.C. Judah was in a precarious position: Judah was sandwiched between the (Greek) Seleucid Empire in the east
and the Roman Empire in the west,
and both powers had taken an interest in obtaining Palestine to enhance their military advantage in the region.
Judah, a small state dwarfed by its hostile neighboring powers, was truly in peril. At this time an internal division within Judah took place, and the Romans seized the opportunity to invade and conquer Judah, in 63 B.C.
The Date 37 B.C.
Twenty-six years later, in 37 B.C., the Romans laid siege on Jerusalem with the object of removing the Jewish monarchy from power. The drive to remove and replace the Jewish monarchy was led by none other than Herod. With Roman assistance, Herod succeeded in dethroning the Hasmonean (Jewish) king (who turned out to be the last Jewish priest-king)--Antigonus II Mattathias--and executed him. In that same year, 37 B.C. Herod the Great at long last accomplished his aspiration to establish himself as the king of Judea.
Why Should the Year 37 B.C Matter at All?
Why, you might ask, does this historical description instantly interest me?
First of all, the ancient Patriarch-Prophet Jacob, Israel, in his dying days pronounced prophetic blessings on each of his twelve sons. In his blessing to Judah, Jacob made the following prophecy:
"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
nor a lawgiver from between his feet,
until Shiloh [In Hebrew "Shiloh" means 'He who shall be sent'] come;
and unto him shall the gathering
of the people [Hebrew: "gentiles"] be."
Genesis 49:10
As the reality that the Jewish priest-king Antigonus II Mattathias was gone and another legitimate yet purely mortal Jewish monarch unlikely to arise, and appreciating that any Jew now to take the throne would have not only to challenge Roman authority but defeat it, if indeed this Jewish king were to wrest the throne of Judah from Herod, Divine intervention would be necessary. Indeed, the Jewish people remembered the words of Jacob that after the scepter had departed from Judah, Shiloh, "He who was sent", would appear.
The Jews also would have held the end of a forty-year period as particularly significant (for 40 years the Israelites had wandered the desert before reaching the promised land, Moses had fasted for 40 days to see God, etc.). These factors--the scepter of Judah having passed and nearly 40 years having lapsed since the execution of Antigonus II Mattathias--combined to produce the expectation that God was about to send Him to whom the Gentiles would gather, and that could only mean the advent of The Son of God, The Messiah.
It was likely for these reasons that Jerusalem was waiting with anxious anticipation, and Herod, being no less aware of these prophecies at least in general, and he being the very instrument of evil that had unbeknownst to him set these events in motion, Herod likely feared that the Messiah would indeed come and have His holy eyes set on paying Herod Divine retribution.
Now I understand (though do not approve of in the least) Herod's rabid reaction to the inquiry of the wise men, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" Matthew 2:2 Herod, reacting rabidly and out of panic-induced brutality, attempted to destroy this Jewish King and at all costs prevent the prophecies from achieving any further fulfillment.
Internal Strife and King-Men Led to the Collapse of Judea
The Hasmonean Queen Alexandra Salome died in 67 B.C. Her elder son, Hyrcanus took the throne, but then her younger son, Aristobulus, removed his older brother from the throne as well as the high priesthood in Jerusalem. As Aristobulus assembled men to fight to ensure his claim to the throne, the Romans led by Gnaeus Pompey Magnus, seeing the internal strife within Judea as the tiny nation divided into two groups of men fighting for a different king (a supremely foolish contention given the stark dangers that faced minuscule Judea sandwiched between two hostile empires, Rome and the Seleucid Empire), seized the moment and invaded. In 63 B.C. the Romans laid siege on Jerusalem and succeeded in taking control of the nation. As the old saying goes, "A house divided cannot stand."
Meanwhile in the West
At this point you may be wondering why I have cited the details of the collapse of Judea, why the internal division of Judea into two groups of men fighting for a different king would have any further interest for me.
The Lord had led two Jewish migrations to the Americas, the first being in 600 B.C. Here The Lord had led the houses of Lehi and Ishmael (as well as one Zoram) to the western hemisphere, and in roughly 592 B.C. The Lord led a second migration, one headed by one son of King Zedekiah, the only prince who was able to escape (with Divine intervention) just before the Babylonians conquered Judah and brutally slaughtered the royal family.
Initially the two different Jewish groups did not meet up in America. Both groups intermarried with local indigenous peoples, but the first group, the descendants of Lehi, converted the Indians thus making them members of the House of Israel. The second group, the descendants of Prince Mulek, had brought no Scriptures with them, and they dwindled in unbelief. However, in 120 B.C. the two peoples, the Nephites and the people of Zarahemla (a.k.a. the Mulekites), united as one nation: the Nephites.
By the time of the unification of the Nephites with the People of Zarahemla (the Mulekites) the Nephites--who had had a succession of kingly descendants of Lehi's middle son, Nephi-- had now established a democratic government in which any citizen could seek to be elected to one of the offices of higher or lower judges. These judges upheld Nephite law and oversaw military operations. Major decisions not covered by Nephite law were decided by referendums. By the time the Mulekites joined the Nephites, the Nephites had already moved on from a monarchy to the reign of the judges.
A House Divided
The Nephite nation was relatively small, and like its counterpart in the Old World, Judea, the Nephite nation was surrounded by hostile and aggressive nations keen on conquering the Nephites and oppressing their religion.
At one point a sizable group of people, not the majority, but a considerable minority, sought to change Nephite law and institute a new monarchy based on "the blood of nobility". Given that nowhere in The Book of Mormon had any descendant of the House of Lehi, not even Nephi's kingly successors, referred to themselves as having "the blood of nobility", the most likely conclusion is that these contenders for a monarchy based on a royal bloodline were Mulekites, descendants of Prince Mulek, the sole surviving son of King Zedekiah of Judah.
Inasmuch as under Nephite government all major issues not covered by law were decided by referendums, a referendum was held, and a solid majority voted in favor of preserving the reign of the judges.
The party of Nephites who had pushed for a new monarchy based on royal blood was not deterred, and they launched a rebellion just as the neighbors of the Nephites launched a fresh invasion. The chief commander of military operations, Captain Moroni, put down this rebellion in 67 B.C., precisely the very same year that Aristobulus began plotting to remove Hycanus from the throne back in Judea.
"And thus Moroni put an end to those king-men,
that there were not any known by the appellation of king-men;
and thus he put an end to the stubbornness
and the pride of those people
who professed the blood of nobility;
but they were brought down to humble themselves
like unto their brethren,
and to fight valiantly for their freedom from bondage."
Alma 51:21
circa 67 B.C.
At this point, in 67 B.C., the Nephites were united, having put down a rebellion, and this unity was critical since their neighbors had launched an invasion. However, as the war dragged on, the Nephite commanders became alarmed that more support was not being sent from the central government. The commanders began to suspect yet another internal division to be at play:
"...behold, we fear that there is some faction in the government,
that they do not send more men to our assistance;
for we know that they are more numerous than that
which they have sent."
Alma 58:36
circa 63 B.C.
It is already noteworthy that an internal division, one that had first erupted in 67 B.C., the very same year when a contention over the throne of Judea arose, was now manifesting itself among the Nephites for the second time, and this second rebellion, also over the issue of establishing a monarchy, took place precisely in the year 63 B.C., the year when Judea fell due to internal strife over the question of royal succession.
Before too long it became clear that the group of rebels indeed consisted of supporters of the establishment of a monarchy based on what they called "the blood of nobility", royal descent, and this time these king-men had managed to seize control of the central government.
The Nephite military, however, was much wiser than their fellow Jewish counterparts in Judea. The Nephites realized that if their nation descended into civil war, the Nephites would be conquered by their enemies. Thus the military, remaining united, proceeded to put down the second rebellion:
"And the men of Pachus received their trial,
according to the law,
and also those king-men who had been taken
and cast into prison;
and they were executed according to the law;
yea, those men of Pachus and those king-men,
whosoever would not take up arms
in the defence of their country,
but would fight against it,
were put to death."
Alma 62:9
circa 61 B.C.
With the second rebellion suppressed the Nephites eventually succeeded in repelling the massive onslaught of their neighbors.
Sceptre of Judah
The parallels in events among the Nephites and the Jews in Judea are astounding:
- 67 B.C. Jewish Prince Aristobulus begins plotting a rebellion against Jewish King Hyrcanus causing lethal internal strife foolishly ignoring the threat the Roman and Seleucid Empires posed.
- 67 B.C. Nephites, most likely descendants of Prince Mulek, son of King Zedekiah of Judah, attempt to replace then topple the representative government of the Nephites even as the People of Nephi are under a massive attack from their neighbors. The rebellion is put down.
- 63 B.C. The Romans, taking advantage of the internal conflict or outright civil war, conquer Judea.
- 63 B.C. The treasonous king-men launch a second rebellion, seize control of the central government, and collude with the invaders to deny support to the military. The military remains united and in 61 B.C. puts down the final rebellion over the establishment of a monarchy based on the "blood of nobility".
But there is one more parallel that is noteworthy, and it has already been discussed. In 61 B.C. the Nephites put down the second rebellion of the king-men. But imagine what might have happened. Suppose, for a moment, that the Nephites would have voted to establish a monarchy, almost undoubtedly based on the descendants of Prince Mulek, son of King Zedekiah of Judah. This Nephite or Mulekite King, King Pachus, being a direct-line descendant of the royal priest-kings of Judah would have preserved a legitimate succession of Jewish kings even after the execution of Antigonus II Mattathias in 37 B.C., at the hands of Herod the Great.
The fact that on two occasion--67 B.C. and 61 B.C.--the Nephites denied Pachus the opportunity to establish a line of succession of Jewish kings with direct-line royal Jewish blood meant that the only legitimate line of Jewish kings, the "sceptre of Judah", was the Hasmonean line in Judea, and that succession ended in 37 B.C. when Herod the Great executed Antigonus II Mattathias. Then the clock began ticking and within 40 years The Messiah was born, just as Jacob had prophesied would happen once the "sceptre" passed from Judah.
Conclusion
I will make one last point: Some naysayers are wont to dismiss The Book of Mormon, often based on superficial appearances or even on bias and nothing more. A close scrutiny reveals deep and uncannily accurate and harmonious correspondences both with The Holy Bible doctrinally and the historical events that unfolded in Judea during the same periods. Such correspondences may help fortify faith or even stir an interest to seek faith--faith being pure science and conviction given by God the Father through His Holy Spirit to the end of converting a man or woman to accept that Jesus is the Christ--but all pales before that simple never-to-be-refuted witness of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is The Christ, and that He has given The Holy Bible and The Book of Mormon, as well as much more.
The readers are at liberty, obviously, to make of these passages what they will. I ask only that the readers bear in mind that everything I have shared is actually textual.
No comments:
Post a Comment