• 08Jun

  EPAPHRODITUS: A Gambling Veteran

  Profiles in Missions Comments Off on EPAPHRODITUS: A Gambling Veteran

  By Gordon Franz

  Introduction

  The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian believers to imitate (follow) him as he followed the Lord Jesus Christ (I Cor. 11:1). Paul, in his epistle to the church at Philippi, set forth several examples of believers who had the mind of Christ – the lowliness of mind, and esteemed others better then themselves (Phil. 2:3, 5). Paul intended for the Christians at Philippi to imitate these examples: one of whom was one of their own – Epaphroditus.

  On the inside wall of the Church of Lydia (currently standing just outside the archaeological park of Philippi), is a mosaic icon of Epaphroditus. He is depicted as a young man dressed in a purple garment, holding what appears to be a scroll. That is not the impression I get from the book of Philippians. Epaphroditus was a veteran, a battle tested soldier, who gambled his life for the sake of the gospel.

  Philippians 2:25-30; 4:18

  Yet I consider it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker, and fellow soldier, but your messenger and the one who ministered to my needs; since he was longing for you all, and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. For indeed he was sick almost unto death; but God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. Therefore I sent him the more eagerly, that when you see him again you may rejoice, and I may be less sorrowful. Receive him therefore in the Lord with all gladness, and hold such men in esteem; because for the work of Christ he came close to death, not regarding his life, to supply what was lacking in your service toward me
  …having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God.

  Epaphroditus in Philippi

  I suspect, but can not conclusively prove, that Epaphroditus was a veteran of the Roman Legion, and possibly of the Praetorian Guard. If so, upon his discharge from the army, he would have been given land in Philippi so he could retire to that Roman colony. It was in this city that he came to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. His former military training and lifestyle would have served him well in his Christian life because he volunteered for a difficult and dangerous task, thus risking his life for the sake of the gospel. There are several lines of reasoning that have led me to this conclusion.

  First, Epaphroditus name means “charming, lovely, or fascinating” and has at the root of his name Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love and beauty. According to Greek mythology she was born in the sea and washed up onto the shore of the island of Cyprus on a sea shell. In fact, Greek mythology could point to the very rocks off the beach where she came ashore. There was even a temple dedicated to her outside the ancient city of Paphos that had a black basalt rock that was worshiped as the goddess. [If you believe this Greek mythology stuff, I will be glad to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge]!

  Apparently Epaphroditus’ parents may have been pagan devotees of the goddess and therefore named their son in her honor. If true, they were probably not from Philippi because no temple or shrine to Aphrodite has been uncovered in the extensive excavations in the city. None of the ancient sources that mention Philippi attest to her presence in the city, nor is there any evidence for her, or her cult, on coins or inscriptions that have been excavated in the ruins of ancient Philippi (Koulouli-Chrysantaks 1998: 22-27).

  I would conclude that Epaphroditus was not born or raised in Philippi but that he came to the city of Philippi as a retired solder. After the battle of Philippi in 42 BC, the victors settled a number of veterans in the city and gave them fertile land to farm (Strabo, Geography 7, fr. 41; LCL 3:363). In 31 BC, after the battle of Actium in western Greece, more veterans were settled in the city upon their retirement from military service. Even in the First Century AD there were retired soldiers living, and eventually dying, in Philippi and its environs (Speidel 1970: 142-153). One of those who retired to the city could have been Epaphroditus.

  Second, the apostle Paul calls Epaphroditus a “fellow soldier” (Phil. 2:25). It is obvious that he is using this term in a metaphorical sense because, as far as we know, Paul never served in the Roman army. But that does not preclude that Epaphroditus did not serve in the military. By using this term, the veterans who were in fellowship in the assembly at Philippi would understand the character of Epaphroditus and the nature of the spiritual warfare that they were engaged in (cf. Eph. 6:10-20).

  Interestingly, during the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54) or Nero (AD 54-68), a coin was minted in Philippi with Nike, the goddess of victory, on the obverse side and three Roman standards on the reverse side. The inscription framing the standards said: “COHOR(tes) PRAE(toriae) PHIL(ippensis)” which means Praetorian Cohorts of Philippi (Burnett, Amandry, and Ripolles 1992:I:308; coin 1651). This suggests that some, if not all, of the veterans in Philippi were from the Praetorian Guards. Perhaps Epaphroditus had served in this elite unit composed of bodyguards for the Emperor. Coincidently, Paul mentioned the Praetorian Guards in his epistle to the Philippians (1:13; cf. 4:22). If the Praetorian Guards did retire to Philippi, the recent converts would be interested in hearing about Paul’s evangelism of their former comrades and Epaphroditus would have told the Philippians believers about this when he returned home.

  Third, there is an axiom that says: “You can take a man out of the Marines, but you can never take the Marines out of the man.” It has been my observation of people who put in their 20, or 25, years in the military and retire still live a regimented military lifestyle. They still say, “Yes sir, no sir.” They still have a disciplined life as far as their time is concerned. They react in dangerous situations in the way they had been trained in the service.

  You will recall the events surrounding Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, the pilot of US Air flight #1549, in the airspace over New York City in January 2009. He was a former US Air Force pilot and trained other pilots in emergency landings. When those geese clogged up and shut down both engines on his plane, he did not stop and think, “Oh my, we have a problem, what am I going to do now?” No, he calmly reacted, based on his many hours of training, and safely landed the plane on the Hudson River. Likewise, as a former soldier, Epaphroditus reverted to his military training and put his life in danger for the sake of the gospel and the Apostle Paul.

  Paul in Philippi

  The church at Philippi was one of Paul’s favorites. He had been to the city, fellowshipped with the saints, and ministered to them on at least three occasions and one of his travelling co-workers, Dr. Luke, was most likely from this city.

  On the Apostle Paul’s second missionary journey (AD 49-52), he was accompanied by Silas and Timothy. In response to the “Macedonian Call”, they went to Philippi and planted a church in that city (Acts 16:9-40). Dr. Luke, apparently a native of Philippi, stayed behind and continued the work in the newly established church in the city (AD 50).

  During Paul’s third missionary journey (AD 52-57) he had a lengthy, almost three year, stay at Ephesus (AD 52-55; Acts 19). The ministry of Paul and his co-worker Timothy, was so effective that “all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (19:10). After the near riots in the theater, Paul thought it best to leave Ephesus so he departed to Macedonia (Acts 19:23-20:1). More than likely, his first stop was Philippi (AD 55). After a ministry in Macedonia, and apparently Illyricum (Rom. 15:19), he went to Greece (Achaia). After three months in Corinth (winter AD 57), he returned to Macedonia and rejoined Dr. Luke in Philippi (spring AD 57). They, and six other brethren, accompanied them to Jerusalem with the collection for the saints in the Holy City (Acts 20:3-6).

  The church at Philippi was dear to Paul’s heart. He enjoyed the “fellowship in the gospel” (Phil. 1:5) that they shared for over ten years and knew they cared for him (4:10). One of the individuals he valued in this fellowship was Epaphroditus. When they first met, and when and how Epaphroditus came to faith, we are not told as well. Most likely it was not the apostle Paul who led his to faith in the Lord Jesus as his Savior because he would have called Epaphroditus “his son in the faith” as he did Timothy (I Tim. 1:2; II Tim. 1:2) and Titus (Tit. 1:4). Paul only calls him a “brother” (Phil. 2:25; cf. John 1:12).

  Paul also identifies Epaphroditus as a “fellow worker” (Phil. 2:25), as he does Clement and other saints from the church at Philippi (Phil. 4:3). These were individuals who labored with the apostle as he and his team proclaimed the gospel in Macedonia on various occasions.

  The Gift to Paul from the Church at Philippi

  The saints at Philippi sent a financial gift to the Apostle Paul while he was under house arrest in Rome (Acts 28:30). He had lost everything when he and Dr. Luke were shipwrecked on Malta and rent was probably high in the Eternal City. This was not the first time the believers in Philippi sent Paul a gift. They sent him two gifts while he was in Thessaloniki (Phil. 4:16), and then again when he was in Corinth (Phil. 4:15; cf. II Cor. 11:9). Each time they gave sacrificially out of their poverty (II Cor. 8:2).

  The church at Philippi appointed Epaphroditus as their “sent one” (apostle) to take the money to Paul (Phil. 4:18). Most likely he would have had others go with him, not only for accountability, but also to protect the money, since this is the pattern in the early church (cf. Acts 20:4; Lenski 1937:696-697). More than likely, they would have walked the Via Egnatia from Philippi to Dyrrachium on the Adriactic Sea (367/8 Roman miles; Adams 1982:280), and then cross the sea by ship. They would have continued walking on the Via Appian from Brundusium to Rome (360 Roman miles). This trip, covering 729 miles, most likely would have taken 57 days, with a rest on each Lord’s Day, a trip of almost two months. If Epaphroditus and his friends made this trip during the winter, he might have picked up pneumonia, or he could have eaten tainted food at one of the inns. These conditions might explain why he got deathly sick and almost died (Phil. 2:27, 30).

  Paul Under House Arrest in Rome

  The Apostle Paul was under house arrest in Rome and more than likely confined to a rented apartment near the Camp of the Praetorian Guards on the Viminal Hill (Richardson 1992: 263, fig. 58; 325, fig. 72; 431). Ministering to him was Dr. Luke and some other brethren (Col. 4:7-14; Philemon 23-24).

  The Philippian church sent a financial gift with Epaphroditus and his team and referred to him as “one who ministered to my needs” (2:25). The implication of that statement was that Epaphroditus was to stay in Rome and join the Apostle Paul’s team and work with him, even though he was under house arrest. There was one problem: Epaphroditus got deathly sick when he arrived in Rome or while he was in the city working with Paul. The Apostle had a dilemma on his hands. He was preparing for his defense before Nero and he also had a person with a near fatal sickness on his hands who may have also been homesick (“… since he was longing for you all” Phil. 2:26) and worried about the believers at home because they heard he was sick. What to do? Fortunately for both Epaphroditus and Paul, God was merciful and intervened in the situation by healing Epaphroditus. That was one less thing Paul had to be concerned about (2:26-27).

  Paul also had another concern on his heart. In that he had heard about the seeds of division that had been planted in the church at Philippi. Two sisters, Euodia and Syntyche, were at odds with each other and Paul needed to implore them to be of one mind in the Lord (4:2).

  The Apostle Paul saw a win-win situation. He would write a letter to the church at Philippi about their fellowship in the gospel (1:3), being of one mind and having the mind of Christ (2:1-11), and have it directed at these two sisters who did not get along. The letter carrier that would take this epistle back would be none other than Epaphroditus (2:25, 28). The people in the assembly at Philippi who were worried about him would rejoice when they saw him again. Paul would be less sorrowful because Epaphroditus was one less concern for him as he prepared for his defense before Nero.

  The Apostle Paul was probably aware that some in the assembly at Philippi would think that Epaphroditus did not accomplish the mission that the church commissioned him to do: join forces with Paul as they engaged in spiritual warfare in Rome. Paul gave a command to the veterans in the assembly to: “Receive him therefore in the Lord with all gladness, and hold such men in esteem.” Not only were they to receive him, but also to hold him in high esteem because he went above and beyond the call of duty for the cause of Christ and almost died in the line of duty (2:30).

  One commentator points out that: “Epaphroditus was no coward, but a courageous person willing to take enormous risks, ready to play with very high stakes in order to come to the aid of a person in need. He did not ‘save’ his life, but rather hazarded it to do for Paul and the cause of Christ what other Philippians Christians did not or could not do” (Hawthorne 1983:120).

  The Greek phrase that is translated “not regarding his life” is a gambling term coined by the Apostle Paul. A Greek gambler, before he rolled the dice, would invoke Aphrodite (or Venus in the Roman world), the goddess of gamblers, with the phrase “epaphroditos”, meaning “favorite of Aphrodite” (Lees 1917:201-203; 1925-1925:46; Hawthorne 1983:120). Paul made a pun on Epaphroditius’ name. Truly the dice were loaded when Epaphroditus put his life on the line for the Lord’s work. Instead of invoking Aphrodite, he invoked the true and living God, and He was merciful to Epaphroditus and healed him.

  Paul concludes this section by stating that Epaphroditus risked his life “to supply what was lacking in your service toward me” (2:30). The Greek construction does not give the impression that Paul is trying to lay a guilt trip on the people in Philippi because they did not do enough for Paul. In fact, the opposite was the case; Paul was praising them because they had sent a trusted and beloved brother who in essence was an extension of their ministry.

  Applications

  There are at least four lessons we can learn from the life of this battle tested soldier of Christ.

  First, he was a brother to the Apostle Paul. Paul used that term in a metaphorical sense to indict that they were in the same spiritual family, the family of God by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ alone (John 1:12; Eph. 2:8, 9). Have you trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior and do you know the assurance of sins forgiven and the guarantee of home in Heaven? Epaphroditus did and knew these truths.

  Second, the Apostle Paul characterized Epaphroditus as a selfless person – one with the mind of Christ who esteemed others better than himself (Phil. 2:1-5). He demonstrated this selflessness by volunteering to go to Rome and help out the Apostle Paul in his time of need. When we consider the Christian life, do we ask ourselves, “What’s in it for me?” Or, do we ask ourselves, “How can I be of service to others?” Epaphroditus sought to serve other people.

  Third, Epaphroditus worked on the philosophy, “I would rather wear out than rust out.” The word retirement was not in his vocabulary! Yes, he may have put his 25 years of service in the Roman army and he had his bronze retirement diploma. But, if that was the case, perhaps he had the same attitude as some Christians today who use the phrase, “I’m not retired, just refocused!” When Epaphroditus retired as a soldier in the Imperial army, he refocused his life as a soldier of the Lord Jesus Christ engaged in spiritual warfare. Have we refocused our lives in order to be engaged in this spiritual warfare?

  Finally, Epaphroditus took great risks for the sake of the gospel. Exactly what he did in gambling with his life, we are not told, but I am sure he will be greatly rewarded at the Judgment Seat of Christ for his risk taking. Will we gamble our lives for the sake of the gospel?

  Isaac Watts (1674-1748) eloquently expressed what may have been the motivation for Epaphroditus “gambling habit” when he penned the last verse of his famous hymn “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross”. He wrote:

  “Were the whole realm of nature mine

  that were a present far too small;

  love so amazing, so divine,

  demands my soul, my life, my all.”

  It was the divine love of the Lord Jesus that constrained Epaphroditus to risk all to follow Jesus because He died and rose again from the dead in order to pay for all Epaphroditus’ sins. It was only his reasonable service to live completely for the Lord Jesus (Rom. 12:1-2), and risking all he had, including his life, to follow Him. Will we be willing to do the same?

  Perhaps Epaphroditus was the one Isaac Watts had in mind when he penned the words to “Am I a Soldier of the Cross?”

  Am I a soldier of the cross, a follower of the Lamb,

  And shall I fear to own His cause, or blush to speak His Name?

  Must I be carried to the skies on flowery beds of ease,

  While others fought to win the prize, and sailed through bloody seas?

  Are there no foes for me to face? Must I not stem the flood?

  Is this vile world a friend to grace, to help me on to God?

  Sure, I must fight if I would reign; increase my courage, Lord;

  I’ll bear the toil, endure the pain, supported by Thy Word.

  Epaphroditus, the gambling veteran, bet all that he had and he hit the jackpot. He received the crown of life (James 1:12)!

  Bibliography

  Adams, John Paul

  1982 Polybius, Pliny and the Via Egnatia. Pp. 269-302 in Philip II, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Heritage. Edited by Adams, W. L.; and Borza, E. N. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

  Burnett, Andrew; Amandry, Michel, and Ripolles, Pere Pau

  1992 Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. 1. London and Paris: British Musem and Bibliotheque nationale de France.

  Hawthorne, Gerald

  1983 Word Biblical Commentary. Philippians. Waco, TX: Word Books.

  Koukouli-Chrysantaki, Chaido

  1998 Colonia Iulia Augusta Philippensis. Pp. 5-35 in Philippi at the Time of Paul and After His Death. Edited by C. Bakirtzis and H. Koester. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

  Lees, Harrington

  1917 St. Paul’s Friends. London: Religious Tract Society.

  1925-26 Epaphroditus, God’s Gambler. Expository Times 37: 46.

  Lenski, R. C. H.

  1937 The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians. Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern.

  Richardson, L. Jr.

  1992 A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University.

  Speidel, Michael

  1970 The Captor of Decebalus a New Inscription from Philippi. Journal of Roman Studies 60: 142-153.

  Strabo

  1983 The Geography of Strabo. Vol. 3. Trans. by H. L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 182.
• 08Jun

  THE LIFE AND LAND OF THE LORD JESUS

  Life of Christ, The Seven Churches of Asia Minor – Rev. 1-3 Comments Off on THE LIFE AND LAND OF THE LORD JESUS

  By Gordon Franz

  The following document is in an outline format and does refer to slides; however, I believe this content would be useful to anyone interested and pray that it will be a blessing.

  Click here to read Life and Land Notes
• 26May

  Reflections of the 2006 Season at Hazor

  Excavations at Hazor Comments Off on Reflections of the 2006 Season at Hazor

  By Gordon Franz

  The 2006 Season
  This past summer was the 17th season of the renewed excavations of Hazor in memory of Professor Yigel Yadin.  ABR had a group of 11 volunteers, lead by Larry Fuller (ABR president) and myself. We joined about 50 other volunteers from Israel and abroad (Scotland, Poland, Romania, America, Denmark, and England) in order to excavate this important site.  The ABR team toured around Israel as part of the actual digging at Tel Hazor.  Our people worked in two areas: A-4 and the renewed Area M.

  The main concentration of work for this season was Area M.  It is in this area that Dr. Sharon Zuckerman, the area supervisor, has suggested that the administrative palace of Hazor was and the Canaanite archive of the Late Bronze level would be located (2006: 28-37).  But before the Late Bronze Age is reached, we must go through the Persian period level and the Iron Age levels.  For a report of the previous seasons of Area M, see Ben-Tor and Rubiato 1999: 32-34.

  In the spring, a bulldozer removed the top half meter of a road that had been put in by the National Parks Authority to allow tourists to drive to the top of the site.  Nine 5 x 5 meter squares were opened this season.  Immediately underneath this road were several stone walls of the Persian period (4th century BC), apparently making the corner of two rooms.  The walls and the restorable pottery that were found were an important contribution to our understanding of Hazor because the excavations in the 1950’s and 1960’s by Prof. Yigel Yadin yielded very little Persian period architecture.

  Two of the ABR volunteers worked in the corners of the rooms.  Michael Lassiter found a cylindrical seal with two dancing animals on it.  After it was cleaned, it was identified as being from the Persian period.  He also found an intact Persian period storage jar.  Hazor is a scientific excavation so Mike spent the better part of a morning removing the packed dirt from the jar in order to do “flotation” on the soil.  This process collects the seeds that were originally in the jar so they could be analyzed and identified.

  Joyce Morril worked in the other room.  She found lots of restorable vessels of the Persian period.  One square over, James Muehling found a bronze object that looked like a battery, but after cleaning, it turned out to be part of a dagger’s handle, possibly of the Persian period or Iron Age.  Unfortunately the blade is in the blaulk that separates the two squares and time did not allow it to be removed.

  In four of the squares, a cobble stone pavement was reached, apparently part of a courtyard from the Iron Age.  In a fifth square there were remains of a hewn water channel that lead to the entrance of a cistern in the courtyard.  Unfortunately the excavation was stopped prematurely, thus leaving lots of questions unanswered, just when we were beginning to find things and the area started to make sense.

  The restoration projects at Hazor continued this season as well.  Orna Cohen and her restorers have beautifully reconstructed the Late Bronze palace on the top of the tel.  Tourists will now be able to sense some of the power and glory of the Canaanite kings of Hazor in this ceremonial reception hall.

  We’re Outa Here!
  On the next to the last day (Thursday) that the ABR group was scheduled to dig at Hazor, trouble broke out in the area.  Our Israeli staff had our best interest and safety in mind and within 15 minutes, a bus was on the site to evacuate us.  We had an early breakfast and returned to the hotel to get what we needed and were taken to Tiberius.  On Saturday morning our bus picked us up, as scheduled, from the Tiberias hotel and were went to Jerusalem to shop and tour and then returned to the United States on Sunday night.

  
  The Prospects for the 2007 Season
  Due to the troubles in the Middle East, the 2006 season was cut short by a few weeks and left many unanswered questions.  Hopefully, next year some of these questions will be answered.
  Dr. Zuckerman has made a compelling case for the archives to be found in Area M.  When the archive(s) are found at Hazor, it/they will be a major contribution to Biblical studies and go a long way to resolve some of the thorny issues in Biblical Archaeology.
  
  Bibliography

  Ben-Tor, Amnon, and Rubiato, Maria Teresa
  1999    Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City?  Biblical Archaeology Review 25/3: 22-39.

  Zuckerman, Sharon
  2006    Where is the Hazor Archive Buried?  Biblical Archaeology Review 32/2: 28-37.

  Hazor Excavations Project
• 26May

  Reflections of the 2005 Season at Hazor

  Excavations at Hazor Comments Off on Reflections of the 2005 Season at Hazor

  By Gordon Franz

  INDIANA JONES AND HAZOR

  Someone shouted, “Bucket chain!”  All the volunteers and area supervisors took their positions and passed 200 plus buckets from one to another across Area A-5, up the ladder and into waiting wheelbarrows.  Others pushed the wheelbarrows to the dump a few meters away.  Last summer (2005), we literally moved tons of dirt and rocks at the excavations at Tel Hazor by doing 10-15 bucket chains per day for six weeks.
  We accomplished a lot as far as moving dirt was concerned, but had little to show for it with regard to small finds.  I came to the startling realization that Indiana Jones and his clones are purely fictional characters.  Real archaeology is a lot of donkey work!

  The 2005 Season

  This past summer was the 16th season of the renewed excavations in memory of Professor Yigael Yadin.  ABR had a group of 21 volunteers, lead by Larry Fuller (ABR president) and myself.  We had tours around Israel as well as actual digging at Tel Hazor.  Our people worked in two areas: A-4 and A-5.
  A-4 was divided into two sections, south and north respectively.  The last of the 10th century BC Solomonic remains were removed in the southern section in order to penetrate into the Bronze Age.  In this section, a plaster floor from the Early Bronze IV period emerged.  This discovery, plus other information, demonstrated that the Upper City of Hazor was densely populated.  Underneath these remains was a room from the Early Bronze III period.  In the northern section, a massive stone was discovered, possibly of a palace (?) from the Middle Bronze II period.
  A-5 is an East-West trench located in front of the Solomonic Gate.  This area was also divided into two sections, south and north respectively.  In previous seasons we found large walls with mudbrick preserved to the height of 4 meters on top of stone foundations that are placed on bedrock.  The function of these walls is elusive.  I jokingly refer to them as the “Canaanite rat maze!”  We have two large “halls” that seemingly do not have entrances.
  As Amnon Ben-Tor, the excavator of Hazor has observed: “The remains exposed in Area A-5 raise three main issues: 1) the nature of the exposed hall, 2) the date of the structure, and 3) the question how the mudbrick walls survived to almost their original height of over 4 m., until the halls were filled the Iron Age II” (Ben-Tor 2005).
  The restoration projects at Hazor continued this season as well.  Orna Cohen and her restorers have beautifully reconstructed the Late Bronze palace on the top of the tel.  Tourists will now be able to sense some of the power and glory of the Canaanite kings of Hazor in this ceremonial reception hall.

  The Prospects for the 2006 Season

  One question that is asked of Dr. Ben-Tor is: “Have you found the Canaanite archives yet?”  It is known that at least two Canaanite archives existed at Hazor, one in the Middle Bronze Age and the other in the Late Bronze Age.  In the 2006 season there will be an attempt to answer this question.  One of the staff members, Dr. Sharon Zuckerman, has suggested that the administrative palace of Hazor was near the gate from the Lower City to the Upper City.  She will set forth her case in a forthcoming issue of “Biblical Archaeology Review.”  In order to test this hypothesis, the 2006 season will concentrate on a reopened Area M that Dr. Zuckerman directed for a number of years (Ben-Tor and Rubiato 1999: 32-34).  There are still several little projects to be completed in Areas A-4 and A-5, including finding the elusive entrances to the halls.
  When the archive(s) are found at Hazor, it/they will be a major contribution to Biblical studies and go a long way to resolve some of the thorny issues in Biblical Archaeology.
  
  Bibliography

  Ben-Tor, Amnon
  2005    Notes and News: Tel Hazor, 2005.  Israel Exploration Journal.  Forthcoming.

  Ben-Tor, Amnon, and Rubiato, Maria Teresa
  1999    Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City?  Biblical Archaeology Review 25/3: 22-39.

  Hazor Excavations Project
• 26May

  Reflections of the 2003 Season at Hazor

  Excavations at Hazor Comments Off on Reflections of the 2003 Season at Hazor

  By Gordon Franz

  What I Did on My Summer Vacation … I Dug Hazor!

  A Day at the Dig

  The knock came at 4:15 in the morning. Shauel, the excavation trouble-shooter, was knocking on the doors in order to wake up all the volunteers of the Hazor excavation. I must admit, I do not normally get up at 4:15, so I moved a bit slow. But each day was filled with excitement. What would we find today? How hot was it going to be outside? Would we have a breeze? Will we ever find that elusive Canaanite archive?

  Before we rode the bus to Hazor, we had a light breakfast of bread and jelly, and sometimes peanut butter, along with coffee, tea or whatever else was put out. At five minutes to five, the bus arrived to take us to the site. It was a short, three-minute ride from our hotel to the dig.

  Work began before sunrise. Looking to the east, one could see the silhouette of Mt. Hermon and the volcanic peaks of the Golan Heights. On some mornings we had spectacular sunrises as the sun peaked over the Heights. But with the appearance of the sun, the temperature increased. How hot was it going to be today?

  This season the Hazor excavation worked primarily in two locations. The Canaanite palace / temple complex was called A4 and a trench just east of the Solomonic gate called A5. The purpose of this trench is to understand the Israelite and Canaanite fortifications. I was digging in A5.

  By seven in the morning we were ready for our first break. We had tea and coffee along with cookies provided by each digger. The tea usually had mint in it. The coffee, well what can I say, when we got down to the bottom of the pitcher, it looked like the Canaanite mud brick from the palace! I do not drink coffee, but I am told it tasted pretty good. After this break, the suntan lotion came out. Even though we had a net over the area that kept out much of the sun, but allowed the breeze to blow through, it was wise to put on the sunscreen.

  There was always the constant reminder to drink water. On some days, I would drink between three and four liters of water! One works up a good sweat on an excavation.

  Breakfast came around at 9:30. Fortunately A5 was right next to our dining area. This meal consisted of the usual Israeli fare for breakfast: tomatoes, cucumbers, yogurt, cottage cheese, bread, rolls, fish of one sort or another, juice, water and halva. Every once and awhile, Shauel would come through with scrambled eggs cooked in olive oil. It was great!

  People sometimes have the wrong impression of archaeology and think it is a treasure hunt. In reality, it is usually tedious “donkey work” of moving dirt. Usually one would use a pick to loosen up the dirt and then scrap it into buckets, all the while looking for any man made objects like pottery, worked flint, or metals. Once all the buckets were filled (in A5 we usually had about 120 of them) the diggers would form a bucket chain and remove all the buckets from the area. Once on top, they were unloaded in wheelbarrows and hauled off to the dump. When a floor level was reached, then the work became a bit more interesting.

  A one o’clock, work was over. We piled on the bus with our pottery buckets and returned to the hotel. Lunch awaited us. Since the hotel restaurant was kosher, lunch was the meat meal. After lunch, we would wash the pottery that was uncovered that day. With that task completed, it was time for a nap. Sleeping in a nice air-conditioned room was a welcomed change after working for eight hours in the heat. At 5:30 it was time for pottery reading and supper at 7:30. This meal was the “dairy meal”, or vegetarian meal. After dinner there was usually a lecture or video until about 9 PM. Soon after, one was fast asleep, waiting for Shauel to knock on your door at 4:15 the next morning!

  Weekends were free to do as you pleased. Unlike most excavations, the diggers were allowed to stay at the hotel on weekends. Some weekends the diggers just relaxed for the weekend and read a good book, or did laundry in the hotel washing machine. Some diggers would rent a car for a day and visit other archaeological sites in the area, Tel Dan, Caesarea Philippi, Nimrod’s Castle, the Golan Heights, Gamla or the Sea of Galilee. The real energetic diggers would rent a car for the weekend and go further a field, to Jerusalem or Akko.

  The excavation had a distinct international flavor. There were a number of Israeli students from Hebrew University as well as other Israelis. There were also people from Romania, the United States, Canada, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Denmark, and Australia. Dr. Ben-Tor pointed out to me one week that one area had eleven people in it and nine different languages spoke! The common language was English.

  Why Dig Hazor?

  Hazor is an important and impressive site. In fact, Hazor is the largest archaeological site in Israel. This 200-acre city consists of two parts, the Upper City, or Acropolis, and the Lower City. The next largest cities, apart from Jerusalem, are Gezer and Lachish at 18 acres. Hazor is eleven times the size of these cities!

  For the student of the Bible, Hazor has an impressive amount of Biblical history and the archaeological remains to go along with it.

  The first mention of Hazor in the Bible is in Joshua 11. “Joshua turned back at that time and took Hazor, and struck its king with the sword; for Hazor was formerly the head of all those kingdoms. And they struck all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them. There was none left breathing. Then he burned Hazor with fire. … But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them, except Hazor only, which Joshua burned” (11:10,11,13, cf. 12:19). The first Israeli excavator of Hazor, Yigel Yadin, and the present excavator, Amnon Ben-Tor, believes the burn level of the Late Bronze II period is evidence of Joshua’s destruction.

  Hazor was allotted to the tribe of Naphtali (Josh. 19:36) and is mentioned in the account of Judges 4 and 5, the story of Deborah and Barak (Judges 4:2,3,24).

  Yadin excavated a very impressive six-chambered gate dating to the 10th century BC and built by King Solomon. Similar gates from this period were discovered at Megiddo and Gezer. Yadin connected this phenomenon with a passage in the Scriptures, “And this is the reason for the labor force which King Solomon raised to build: to build the house of the LORD, his own house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer” (I Kings 9:15).

  In the mid-8th century BC an extraordinary earthquake hit the Middle East. Amos (1:2) as well as Isaiah predicted this earthquake (2:19, 21). Yadin discovered evidence for this earthquake in the 1950’s in Area A. This summer, I believe there was more archaeological evidence for this earthquake in A5. Walls were uncovered that tilted to the south or east and floors collapsed. As I looked at those walls, I contemplated the reason for this earthquake. The prophets warned the people to humble themselves because they were proud and haughty. If they did not, the prophets said, God would humble them with an earthquake (Isa. 2). Several years ago I wrote an article on the archaeological evidence for, and the geological implications of, this earthquake with two geologists, Dr. Steve Austin and Dr. Eric Frost. Based on the archaeological evidence, it was determined that the magnitude of this quake measured at 8.2 on the Richter scale! That was a big quake.

  Israel, the Northern Kingdom, did not heed the words of the prophets. Amos predicted that a greater judgment would fall on Israel if they did not return to the Lord. That judgment was an invasion by the Assyrians. In 732 BC, the Assyrian king, Tiglath-Pileser III invaded Israel. “In the days of Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maachah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried them captive to Assyria” (II Kings 15:29; cf. Isa, 9:1).

  At one point during the excavation I was clearing a street level, the area supervisor called it a junkyard. Among other things, I found five arrowheads, one spear point and a sickle, all possibly associated with the Assyrian attack on the city in 732 BC. As I was digging, I was wondering to myself, why would God allow the Assyrians to attack Israel? I recalled the words of the prophet Isaiah, “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger and the staff in whose hand is my indignation. I will send him against and ungodly nation, and against the people of My wrath” (10:5,6a). God used the Assyrians to chasten Israel in order to bring them back to Himself. They did not respond positively to the message of the prophets so they were taken into captivity (Lev. 26:32-39; Deut. 28:58-67).

  Interestingly enough, Yadin discovered partially eaten pigs underneath the Assyrian destruction level. This indicates that the Israelites were eating pork just prior to the destruction of the city, something the prophet Isaiah condemned because the Mosaic Law forbade it (Isa. 65:1-4; 66:17, cf. Lev. 11:7).

  There are other Biblical connections that the Bible student would find fascinating and would help to better understand the Scriptures, but these remain for another time.

  Hope to see you next summer at Hazor. Shauel would love to wake you up at 4:15!

  Hazor Excavations Project
• 29Apr

  THE GEOGRAPHY AND MILITARY STRATEGY OF KING UZZIAH: AN EXPANSIONIST POLICY THAT LED TO HIS DESTRUCTION

  Archaeology and the Bible Comments Off on THE GEOGRAPHY AND MILITARY STRATEGY OF KING UZZIAH: AN EXPANSIONIST POLICY THAT LED TO HIS DESTRUCTION

  By Gordon Franz

  Introduction

  The consequence of King Uzziah’s military strategy associated with his foreign policy is summarized by a proverb of wise King Solomon.  He stated: “Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16:18).  Let us examine the geography of King Uzziah’s military expansionist policies and show how these policies led to a proud heart and eventually to his downfall.  King Uzziah (also called Azariah in II Kings 15:1-7) is an example of a king who starts out spiritually on the right foot, but ends up on the wrong foot (II Chron. 26).

  Chronology

  At this point in Israel’s history the Kingdom is divided.  The ten tribes to the north called Israel and the two tribes to the south called Judah.  King Uzziah, also known as Azariah, reigned from 792-740 BC.  He was 16 years old when he came to the throne (792 BC) after the death of his father Amaziah.  Uzzaih “sought God in the days of Zechariah” which was about 25 years.  When he was 41 years old, about 767 BC, he rebuilt Eilat.  His expansionist policies led to a “strong heart being lifted up” and in the year 750 BC, the Middle East was struck with a devastating earthquake and Uzziah was struck with leprosy.  In the northern Kingdom, Jeroboam II was ruling from Samaria (792-753/2 BC).

  The Rebuilding of Eilat

  King Uzziah stepped out of the will of God as revealed in the Word of God, by taking territory that did not belong to him.  It is unusual for the writer of the book of Chronicles to mention the building activities in the summary formula of the king’s reign.  The Spirit of God included this statement of the building of Eilat because it a key to understanding Uzziah’s pride, and his subsequent downfall.

  The southern border of Israel, which is also the southern border of the tribal territory of Judah, is explicitly given in Numbers 34:3-5.  It states: “Your southern border shall be from the Wilderness of Zin along the border of Edom; then your sourhern border shall extend eastward to the end of the Salt Sea; your border shall turn from the southern side of the Ascent of Akrabbim, continue to Zin, and be on the south side of Kadesh Barnea; then it shall go to Hazar Addar; and continue to Azmon; the border shall turn from Azmon to the Brook Egypt, and it shall end at the Sea.”  Joshua basically reiterates the same borders: “The border of Edom at the Wilderness of Zin southward was the extreme southern boundry.  And their southern border began at the shore of the Salt Sea, from the bay that faces southward.  Then it went out to the southern side of the Ascent of Akrabbim, passed along to Zin, ascended on the south side of Kadesh Barnea, passed along to Hezron, went up to Adar, and went around to Karkaa.  From there it passed toward Azmon and went out to the Brook of Egypt; and the border ended at the sea.  This shall be your southern border” (15:2-4; CBA 51).

  There are two things to note in these passages.  First, the line of the border goes from the southern end of the Dead Sea, to the south of the Ascent of Akrabbim (the scorpion), through the Wilderness of Zin to a point south of Kadesh Barnea.  The second thing to note is that the territory of Edom lies to the south of the Land of Israel and the tribal territory of Judah (Crew 2002).

  The city of Eilat that was built by King Uzziah was in Edom’s territory.  When King Solomon sent out his Red Sea fleet, they departed from “Ezion Geber, which is near Elath on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom” (I Kings 9:26).  “Then Solomon went to Ezion Geber and Elath on the seacoast, in the land of Edom” (II Chron. 8:17).

  In the description of the Children of Israel wandering in the wilderness, the territory of Edom is mentioned and Eilat and Ezion Geber are placed in this territory (Deut. 2:1-8).

  When I was a student at the Institute of Holy land Studies in Jerusalem, I had a class on “Modern Israeli Society.”  One lecture was by a member of Israel’s parliament, the Kenesst.  His name was Yehuda ben Moshe.  He made a statement I never forgot.  He said his only claim to fame in life was: “I was the first mayor of Eilat in 1948 and it was a city that did not belong to us Biblically!”  I thought that was an odd statement when he made it, but when I began to study the life of King Uzziah, I realized he was right.  Eilat belonged to Edom, not Israel.

  The Identification of the Eilat

  The region of Eilat / Akaba was first surveyed by Fritz Frank in 1933.  He identified Tel el-Kheleifeh with Biblical Ezion Geber.  Nelson Glueck conducted three seasons of excavations at this site between 1938 and 1940.  He identified Tell el-Kheleifeh with Biblical Ezion-geber and Eilat (Glueck 1938: 2-13).

  Prof. Benjamin Mazar challenged Glueck’s view.  He stated: “The immediate vicinity of ‘Aqaba is the most suitable spot for an Israelite fort to be associated with Ezion-Geber, located within the settled area of Elath.  The latter would be the earlier name of the site, and the fortress of Ezion-Geber would have been founded, after David’s conquest of Edom, as an emporium for the South-Arabian trade” (Mazar 1975: 119*).  He suggested that Tell el-Kheleifeh was Ebronah, one of Solomon’s “store-city” (Mazar 1975: 120*), also known as Biblical Abronah (Num. 33: 34-36).

  Burno Rothenberg identifies the Ezion-Geber with Jezirat Fara’un, known as Pharaoh’s Island, to the west of modern Eilat (Rothenberg 1972: 202-207; Flinder 1989: 30-43).

  Recently, a reappraisal of the excavations and identification of Tell el-Kheleifeh was done by Gary Pratico (1985: 1-32; 1986: 24-35; 1993: 17-23).  He concluded that the “identification of Tell el-Kheleifeh is both an archaeological and an historical problem.  One may argue the identification from the perspective of possibility or probability but the problem of verification precludes examination of the site in the context of Biblical Ezion-geber and/or Eilath (1985:27).

  While we may not know precisely where the ancient site of Eilat is today, it is safe to say that it is in the area of modern day Eilat (Israel) and Akaba (Jordan).  It’s location on the tip of the Red Sea (Gulf of Eilat / Akaba) made it ideal for mercantile trade.  Sea trade and caravans through this port brought an increase in wealth for Judah because of this trade.  There were two other Israelite / Judean kings that took Eilat as well, Solomon (I Kings 9:26; CBA 112, 115) and Jehoshaphat (II Chron. 20:36).

  The Military Preparations and Expansionist Conquests

  The Chronicler records the military activity of King Uzziah.  He states: “Now he [Uzziah] went out and made war against the Philistines, and broke down the wall of Gath, and the wall of Jabneh, and the wall of Ashdod; and he built cities around Ashdod and among the Philistines.  God helped him against the Philistines, against the Arabians who lived in Gur Baal, and against the Meunites.  And the Ammonites brought tribute to Uzziah.  His fame spread as far as the entrance of Egypt, for he became exceedingly strong.  And Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem …  And Uzziah built towers in the desert (midbar).  He dug many wells, for he had much livestock, both in the lowlands (Shephelah) and the plains (Coastal Plains); he also had farmers and vinedressers in the mountains and in Carmel, for he loved the soil” (II Chron. 26:6-10; CBA 141).

  At the beginning of his military campaigns, Uzziah made war against the Philistines and God helped him (26:6, 7).  The southern border of Israel was the “brook Egypt”.  Nadav Na’aman places this border at the Nahal Basor, just south of Gaza city (1979:68-90; 1980:95-109).  Anson Rainey disputes this identification and places it at Wadi al-Arish (1982:130-136).  Judah should have driven the Philistines out of this territory long ago because they were a bad influence on Judah / Israel, a fact acknowledged by the Prophet Isaiah (2:6).

  The securing of Philistia and the settlement of Judeans within the coastal plains had two economic benefits.  First, it gave them the opportunity to develop the agriculture in the area.  This was something that Uzziah had a keen interest in (II Chron. 26:10).  Second, Uzziah was able to extract tribute from the caravans that used the International Coastal Highway that went through the territory of Philistia (CBA 9, 10).

  Uzziah also turned his attention to the Arabians that lived at Gur Baal (26:7).  The location of Gur Baal is a much debated topic, but it appears to be somewhere in the region southwest of Judah and near Philistia (Eph’al 1982: 77, 78).  The Meunites (26:7) appeared to have settled in the northern Sinai Peninsula to the west of the Aravah and Edom’s territory (I Chron. 4:41, 42; Eph’al 1982:65, 66).  In this military action, Uzziah is trying to secure his trade routes to Eilat from any attacks from the west.

  The statement that the Ammonites brought tribute to King Uzziah (26:8), implies that Judah controlled the area as well as the strategic Transjordanian Highway that went through their territory, thus brining more tribute money (CBA 9, 10).

  Uzziah built towers (migdalim) in the desert (midbar).  The midbar in view here is the Wilderness of Zin and its surrounding areas (26:10).  Rudolph Cohen has excavated a number of Iron Age fortresses in the Central Negev Highlands, the area of the Wilderness (midbar) of Zin (Cohen 1979: 61-79).  These fortresses, along the southern border of Judah, guarded the road to Eilat (Aharoni 1967: 15-17).  For a contrary view, see Finkelstein 1984: 189-209.

  Uzziah also dug many wells, or cisterns (borot) in the area.  Some of which can still be seen in the area (Cohen 1981: xxvii, 62-64, site 101).

  The Relationship of the Kings of Judah to Wealth and Power

  Moses sets forth the rules and regulations concerning the future rule of kings of Israel / Judah (Deut. 17:14-20).  He states that the king will be chosen from “your brethren” (17:15).  He was not to multiply horses to himself (17:16).  This is to prevent the king from boasting about his own strength (cf. Josh. 11:6; II Sam. 8:4; Micah 5:10).  The king is not to multiply wives (17:17a).  An example of one who did was Solomon and the foreign wives drew his heart away from the Lord.  The king was not to greatly multiply silver and gold to himself (17:17b).  They need silver and gold to keep the kingdom functioning, but the instruction is not to “multiply” the precious metals.  The king was to write a copy of the (Mosaic) Law (17:18) and read the Law (17:19).  The king is subject to the Law and is not above it (17:20).

  King Uzziah followed all these principles in the first part of his reign.  In the beginning he learned to fear God (II Chron. 26:16a); he observed God’s statues (26:16b); his heart was not lifted up (26:16b); nor did not turn away from the LORD (26:18), thus his days were prolonged (26:21).  Yet after he took Eilat, he built up his military and it included multiplying horses for his army.  As a result of controlling the international highways and receiving tribute, he multiplied gold and silver to himself.  The Prophet Isaiah acknowledged this state of affairs.  “Their land [Judah] is also full of silver and gold, and there is no end to their treasures; their land is also full of horses, and there is no end to their chariots” (2:7).

  The Earthquake in the Days of King Uzziah

  In the mid-8^th century BC, the Middle East was hit with a devastating earthquake.  The prophets warned both the Northern Kingdom as well as the Southern Kingdom of impending danger if they did not turn from their evil ways and return to the Lord and His ways.

  Two years before this earthquake, the Judean shepherd from Tekoa, cried out against the social injustices in the northern kingdom under the rule of Jeroboam II (Amos 1:1; 9:1).  The book that bears his name is replete with warnings of an earthquake to come.  In the southern kingdom, Isaiah warns of this earthquake as well because of the haughtiness of the people of Judah (Isa. 2:6-21).  Hundreds of years later, the prophet Zechariah reminds the people of Judah of the devastation caused by this earthquake (Zech. 14:4, 5).

  Evidence for this earthquake has been uncovered by the archaeologists spade throughout Israel and Jordan.  Graphic evidence can be seen at Hazor and Ein Hazeva (Biblical Tamar).  I tri-authored an article with two geologists on this earthquake and it was concluded that the earthquake measured an 8.2 on the Ritcher scale and the epicenter was located in the Beka Valley, in present day Lebanon (Austin, Franz and Frost 2000: 657-671).  An earthquake of that magnitude would put the fear of the LORD into anybody.

  Josephus, the First Century Jewish historian, described the events in Jerusalem during this earthquake.  King Uzziah was in the Temple trying to offer incense on the altar at Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, a duty only allowed the High Priest (Lev. 16 and 17).  The priests tried to stop him, but he was defiant.  Josephus records what happens next: “But, while he [Uzziah] spoke, a great tremor shook the earth, and, as the temple was riven, a brilliant shaft of sunlight gleamed through it and fell upon the king’s face so that leprosy at once smote him” (Antiquities of the Jews 9:225; LCL 6:119; cf. II Chron. 26:19-21, 23).  The Bible does not place the two events together chronologically, but Josephus may have had access to records that are no longer available to us.

  Uzziah was so full of pride that he thought he was above the Law and could do anything he wanted to do.  The Chronicler again records: “But when he was strong his heart was lifted up, to his destruction, for he transgressed against the LORD his God by entering the Temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense” (II Chron. 26:16).  The same Hebrew words are used in Proverb 16:18 which states: “Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.”  Uzziah paid a high price for his pride and disobedience to the Word of God.  He was put outside the city in an “isolation house” and was not allowed into the Temple again (II Chron. 26:21).

  The Death of King Uzziah

  The Bible records the death of King Uzziah in these terms: “So Uzziah rested with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the field of burial which belonged to the kings, for they said, ‘He is a leper'” (II Chron. 26:23).  He was buried with his fathers, but not in the royal tombs.  His burial cave is probably the cave in the City of David overlooking the “Tower of Siloah.”

  In the 19^th century, a burial inscription was discovered on the Mount of Olives (Cameron 1973: 120, #255).  It read: “Here were brought / the bones of Uzziah, / King of Judah, / and not to be opened.”  The paleography of the inscription is late 1^st century BC.  Joesphus records that Herod the Great erected a monument over the tomb of David after he tried to steal some of the gold and silver from the tomb.  This was probably the time when Uzziah’s bones were moved and the inscription was written.

  Summary of King Uzziah’s Foreign Policy and Spiritual Regression

  King Uzziah began his reign on the “right foot” by being obedient to the Word of God.  Somewhere along the line, he stepped out of the will of God, as revealed in the Word of God, by taking Eilat.  When he did this, he had built up his military in order to control the Transjordanian Highway and the International Coastal Highway.  As a consequence of controlling these roads, he had to fortify these and other routes.  Yet with the control of these roads, the national treasury increased.  Yet the sad fact is, because of his military strength and wealth, King Uzziah developed a proud heart that led to his downfall (II Chron. 26:15, 16; Prov. 16:18).

  Outline of the Life and Times of King Uzziah (II Chron. 26)

  A.   Introduction.  26:1-5.

  B.   The prosperity of King Uzziah.  26:6-15.

  1.    Material possessions.  26:6-10.

  2.    Military preparations.  26:11-15.

  C.   The pride of King Uzziah.  26:16-19; cf. Deut. 8:6-18; Prov. 16:18.

  D.   The punishment of King Uzziah.  26:20-23.

  Bibliography

  Aharoni, Yohanan

  1967    Forerunners of the Limes: Iron Age Fortresses in the Negev.  Israel Exploration Journal 17/1: 1-17.

  Aharoni, Yohanan; Avi-Yonah, Michael; Rainey, Anson; and Safrai, Ze’ev

  2002   The Carta Bible Atlas.  Fourth edition.  Jerusalem: Carta.  (Footnoted as CBA).

  Austin, Steve, Franz, Gordon, and Frost, Eric

  2000    Amos’s Earthquake:  An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.  International Geology Review 42/7: 657-671.

  Carmon, Efrat, ed.

  1972    Inscriptions Revealed.  Trans. by R. Grafman.  Jerusalem: Israel Museum.

  Cohen, Rudolph

  1979   The Iron Age Fortresses in the Central Negev.  Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 236: 61-79.

  1981   Archaeological Survey of Israel.  Map of Sede Boqer – East (168).  Jerusalem: Archaeological Survey of Israel.

  Crew, Bruce

  2002   Did Edom’s Original Territories Extend West of ‘Wadi Arabah?  Bible and Spade 15/1: 2-10.

  Eph’al, Israel

  1982    The Ancient Arabs.  Jerusalem and Leiden: Magness and E. J. Brill.

  Finkelstein, Israel

  1984      The Iron Age “Fortresses” of the Negev Highlands:

  Sendentarization of the Nomads.  Tel Aviv 11/2: 189-209.

  Flinder, Alexander

  1989    Is This Solomon’s Seaport?  Biblical Archaeology Review 15/4: 30-43.

  Glueck, Nelson

  1938    The Topography and History of Ezion-Geber and Elath.  Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 72: 2-13.

  Josephus

  1937   Antiquities of the Jews.  Books 9-11.  Vol. 6.  Trans. by R. Marcus.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 326.  Reprinted in 1987.

  Mazar, Benjamin

  1975    Ezion-Geber and Ebronah.  Eretz-Israel 12: 46-48, 119*.

  Na’aman, Nadav

  1979    The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt.  Tel Aviv 6: 68-90.

  1980    The Shihor of Egypt and Shur that is Before Egypt.  Tel Aviv 7: 95-109.

  Pratico, Gary

  1985    Nelson Glueck’s 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A

  Reappraisal.  Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

  Research 259: 1-32.

  1986    A Reappraisal of the Site Archaeologist Nelson Glueck Identified as King Solomon’s Red Sea Port.  Biblical Archaeology Review 12/5: 24-35.

  1993    Nelson Glueck’s 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh.  A Reappraisal.  Atlanta, GA: Scholars.

  Rainey, Anson

  1982     Toponymic Problems (cont.).  Tel Aviv 9/2: 130-136.

  Rothenberg, Beno

  1972    Timna.  Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines.  Aylesbury: Thames and Hudson.

  This paper was first read at the Association of American Geographers meeting in Boston, MA on April 16, 2008.
• 22Apr

  “The Most Important Discovery was the People”: An Interview with Dr. Gabriel Barkay

  Jerusalem Comments Off on “The Most Important Discovery was the People”: An Interview with Dr. Gabriel Barkay

  By Gordon Franz and Stephanie Hernandez

  Raised in the ghettos of Budapest, Hungary, Israeli archaeologist Gabriel Barkay has had an accomplished career in the archaeology of the Bible Lands.  Barkay holds both Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from Hebrew University and a PhD from Tel Aviv University.  His doctoral dissertation, completed in 1985, was on “Northern and Western Jerusalem at the End of the Iron Age.”

  Gordon Franz: Thank you for doing this interview for us Goby.  In which schools have you taught?

  Gabriel “Goby” Barkay:  I taught for 27 years at Tel Aviv University in their Institute of Archaeology.  Since 1997, I have taught at different schools, mainly Bar-Ilan University, the Hebrew University Rothberg School for Overseas Studies, and for more than 30 years I’ve been teaching at the American Institute of Holy Land Studies, better known today as the Jerusalem University College.

  Gordon: Where have you excavated?

  Goby: I started my excavations at Tel Arad in 1963.  In 1964 I participated in a short excavation in Jerusalem on the road going up to Mount Zion, known as the Pope’s Road.  In 1965, I participated in a dig as a student with Yigael Yadin at Megiddo.  That same year I started for several seasons excavating in the Negev with Avraham Negev, including Beersheva and Tel Masos for eleven seasons.  I also spent fifteen years at Lachish.  Since the 1970’s I concentrated my efforts on Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity.  For seven seasons, I directed the excavations at Ketef Hinnom below the St. Andrews Church of Scotland as well as several burial caves in the Hinnom Valley.  To the west of Jerusalem I dug one of the tumuli and also a short season at Ramat Rachel.  I dug for two seasons at Jezreel.  I dug one season at Susa in Iran during the winter of 1969.  In the last seven years I have been involved in a project in the Shephelah at Tel Zayit, digging with Professor Ron Tappy from the Pittsburg Theological Seminary.

  Gordon: How did you become involved in the Temple Mount Sifting Project?

  Gody: A violation of the law took place on the Temple Mount when a gigantic mosque was built inside Solomon’s Stables in 1996.  In 1999 there was a removal of an enormous quantities of soil saturated with archaeological material from inside the Temple Mount.  We were all enraged.  I remember myself in December 1999 or January 2000, participating in a demonstration that took place near the piles of dirt removed from the Temple Mount and remember being interviewed by different television stations on the subject.  I was very much enraged by the fact that the Temple Mount, being the most important archaeological site in the country, is a black hole in the archaeology of Jerusalem.

  We actually know nothing about the Temple Mount archaeologically.  We know it is more than twice the size of the City of David and is the center of activity in ancient times in Jerusalem and not a single sherd was published from the Temple Mount.  Not one survey was carried out on the Temple Mount and that is something that is almost unthinkable.

  In 2000, two of my former students, Zachi Zweig and Aran Yardeni showed up at this very place we are sitting right now.  They were very upset and they emptied onto the dining room table here two plastic bags that included much mud, but also pot sherds of different periods that I could identify.  They covered a wide range of the history of Jerusalem, starting with the Iron Age and ending with the Ottoman-Turkish period.  Even earlier than that, I collected pieces of pottery on the piles removed from the Temple Mount which showed that the pile is embodied in it a potential of archaeological studies.  The two students and their enthusiasm convinced me that something had to be done.

  I negotiated in 2000 with different bodies in an attempt to organize a systematic sifting of the material, but the damage was done.  The corpse of the destruction act of the Islamic Waqf was done, the body was already there.  The question was now, how to get something positive out of this tragedy.  In any case, I was encouraged by Zachi and eventually, after long deliberations, denials and negotiations, and even threats, we managed to get a license in the beginning in my name only and later in Zachi’s name as well.  We managed to get a license for sifting through the material in 2004.

  Gordon:  Some archaeologists have suggested that the project is not real archaeology.  What can we learn from the sifting project that will help in our knowledge of Jerusalem in general and the Temple Mount in particular?

  Goby: I would prefer to have real archaeology on the Temple Mount, if it were possible.  That would be great.  Because of political and religious reasons, one can not dig on the Temple Mount.  I do not see in the coming future any possibility of carrying out any normal pre-initiated excavations on the Temple Mount.  We have to suffice with what we can do.  It is always like that in Jerusalem.  In Jerusalem, you do not dig wherever you want to dig, but wherever it is possible.  So this is in line with Jerusalem’s archaeology.

  Of course, it is much easier to stand on Mount Olympus, dig some site in Greece or in Turkey, or in Hazor or Megiddo, or any other place and criticize people working in Jerusalem.  Jerusalem is under totally different conditions than any other sites.  And in Jerusalem, the archaeology and politics: what can we do?  It goes hand in hand.  It goes together and there is much influence to the archaeological activities in Jerusalem by all kinds of political and other interventions.

  If I am interested to know about the Temple Mount, then I am directed by my interests, my motivations.  I am interested in the Temple Mount and so is the scholarly world in general.  Everyone does what everyone can.  This is how I can learn something about the Temple Mount.  Of course, I would prefer to have normal excavations on the Temple Mount, but that is impossible, so we have to go in the possible way and not criticize the conditions, but get the advantages of what we can do.

  Eventually at the end of this sifting project, or even before the end, we are going to have a kind of a graph showing the intensiveness of human activity upon the Temple Mount in different periods, the statistics of pottery found on the Temple Mount from each and every one of the archaeological periods.  The pottery and the amounts of pottery will eventually show the history of occupation upon the Temple Mount.  I am well aware of the fact that we work with material which does not have any context.  It does not come from the floors, it does not come from stratigraphy, and it does not come from the ideal conditions that an archaeologist would prefer.

  Our project is comparable to a surface survey.  If you go to a site which was not yet studied, the first thing you do is collect the pottery from the surface, assuming that upon the surface there is a proper representation of all periods and all the civilizations that once were active on the site.  The activity throughout the years brought up to the surface from the activity on that certain site.  The archaeological survey is a legitimate and common archaeological activity.  That is also without any context to the finds.  You collect the pottery and draw conclusions without having any floors, any architecture, any stratigraphy, and so forth.  Nevertheless, you come to historical, geographical conclusions.  So our work is comparable to a surface survey of any archaeological site.  When we know nothing, it is better to know little than to despair and give it all up.

  Gordon:  You have studies what has been sifted so far.  Is there any aspect of our understanding of the history of Jerusalem, and specifically the Temple Mount, that the sifting project would change?

  Goby: The answer is yes, very much so.  We have already some preliminary results which changed the history of Jerusalem on the whole and even the Temple Mount.  For example, we have a group of flint implements from the prehistoric Epi-paleolithic period, approximately 15,000 years before our time.  This was a period previously unknown in Jerusalem.  We have some implements and nice arrowheads of the Neolithic period which is hardly known in Jerusalem.  So, this is by itself a very important contribution.  We have some Bronze Age pottery and it is hard to tell if the Temple Mount was part of human activity in Jerusalem in the 4^th, 3^rd, 2^nd millennia BC.  But nevertheless, we have some Chalcolithic pottery, Bronze Age pottery, 2^nd millennium pottery from the time of the Canaanites.  We have scarabs of the general Egyptian times, one of which is probably from the Middle Bronze Age and the other from the Late Bronze Age, which is a welcomed addition to the scarce knowledge we have of Jerusalem in the second millennium BC.

  Concerning the Iron Age, it is very interesting we do not have any pottery that we can clearly say is part of the Iron Age I.  On the other hand, Iron Age 2A, from the 10^th century BC, is where we have some material, not of quantitative value, but still we have some pieces that can be clearly dated, and burnished pieces which are of the 10^th century BC.

  Concerning the later periods, we have a large number of coins and that is one specialty of the sifting project.  We have many thousands of coins and we have for example, one Yehud coin of the Persian Period in the 4^th century BC.  This type of coin has been rare and is important to have.  We have several coins of the early Hellenistic period from the rule of the Ptolemy’s, the late 4^th and 3^rd centuries BC.  We have some coins from the Seleucid rule in Jerusalem, and that period is quite enigmatic in the archaeology of Jerusalem, since we do not have many finds in other digs from that time.  So we can draw a nice picture of the history of Jerusalem from the coins.

  Concerning other periods, such as the Byzantine period, the Christian period, we do not have too many good sources of the Temple Mount.  In the account of pilgrims coming to the Holy City of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount is entirely ignored.  It does not play any important role in the early Christian period.  In the written sources one can surmise the Temple Mount was either empty, not active, or was a garbage heap at the time.  The results of the sifting project show a totally different picture.  It shows much activity.  We have a large number of objects dating back to the early Christian period, drawing a totally different picture than what was known before.  We have a large number of coins from the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th centuries of the Common Era.  We have a large number of weights from weighing gold, showing that there was economic activity on the Temple Mount.

  We have a large amount of pottery of the Byzantine period: oil lamps, household ware, as well as course ware of different kinds and types.  In addition, we have architectural fragments of Corinthian capitals, which evidentially belong to ecclesiastical structures.  I think that the whole role of the Temple mount in the early Christian period should be reevaluated, which means that in a densely built up city, which Christian Jerusalem was in the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th centuries, I can not imagine a large, vast area of 145,000 square meters in the heart of the city being totally abandoned and totally unused, while the vicinity of the city, just outside Jaffa Gate, on the slopes of the Mount of Olives, on the hills surrounding the city on the north up to St. Etienne on the north and even further than that, there was much activity.  There was an overflow of human activity on the outskirts of Jerusalem.  So why did the inside of Jerusalem remain empty, such a vast area left unused?  That does not make sense on the one hand and on the other hand we have an abundance of material.

  Among the material we have are a large number of pieces of jewelry, which at the moment are understudied, but typologically, they could be related to the early Christian period.  Among the finds we have about ten or so cruciform C-shaped pendants which were left by the pilgrims or Christians who were active on the Temple Mount.  We have from sources perhaps an existence of a nunnery, maybe even an ecclesiastical building; a pinnacle church.  So all this hints to a possibility that we will have in the future the ability to change what is known about the Temple Mount in the history books.

  Now, another period which is interesting is the Early Roman period.  The Temple Mount was destroyed by Titus.  We know about the Temple Mount only seventy years later, when Hadrian rebuilt the city of Aelia-Capitaline.  The question is what happened between.  What happened towards the end of the 1^st century AD and the 2^nd century AD?  I believe that our finds will enable us to draw a picture of the Temple Mount history of that enigmatic period of time.

  Gordon: What do you think are the most important objects found during the sifting project so far, and why are they important?

  Goby: First of all, the most important discovery we have is not the finds.  I discovered that people are more important than finds.  We work with a very, very fine team of people who are very sensitive, very helpful, very good natured people and I’ve witnessed the arrival of 40,000 volunteers who participated in this project.  The greatest discovery is the immense interest of the people in archaeology and also from circles who would not come to any other archaeological project but who are drawn by a connection to the Temple Mount.  In any case, very devote Christian evangelists, the Jewish ultra-orthodox and Orthodox circle come and participate and sift.  They are thrilled to have their hands upon the objects that were in the immediate vicinity or area of the Temple Mount itself and were part of the worship of the Temple.  So watching the people, watching their excitement, watching their emotional involvement in our project is one of the greatest discoveries.

  We collect in the project everything that was either made by man or used by man or testifies about man’s environment.  So we collect seashells and we have them in abundance.  We collect animal bones and we have them in abundance and eventually those parts of a general assemblage of materials will be of great importance.  Among the bones we have several pig bones, several foxes, and we have all kinds and types of wild animals as well as household animals.  We have a large number of burnt bones, especially of sheep and goats.  Eventually, in the future, we are not only going to identify the bones but also date them with advanced techniques, such as C-14 data.  We are going to have some knowledge about the sacrificial activity upon the Temple Mount.

  We have much information about the Islamic periods on the Temple Mount and I would like to stress that.  We deal with all the periods of the Temple Mount, from the earliest involvement of mankind in the past of the country and until our own days.  We have rich finds from the Arabic period, from the time of the Umayyad Dynasty, the time of the Abbasid Dynasty, the time of the Fatimid Dynasty, time of the Crusaders.  We have an abundance and rich collection of Crusader coins minted in Jerusalem and we ought not to forget that the headquarters of the Knights Templar were in the southern quadrant of the Temple Mount where the soil was removed.  We have a rich collection of Mamluk and Turkish-Ottoman finds including art objects, gaming pieces, glass objects, coins, jewelry, and an abundance of all kinds of types and finds.

  If we go to the most touching piece that we have I would say that I was very much touched by a small piece, about 10 cm in size, of stone which is sculpted in the Herodian style.  It has a remnant of a floral or vegetal design, very beautifully and artistically carved out of hard limestone.  The piece itself got exfoliated or unpeeled from a building as a result of conflagration at a high temperature.  The piece is in the style of the Jewish art of the Herodian Dynasty’s time and is close in style to the facades of sculpted burial caves, and in the style of the decorated ceilings of the Huldah Gate passages underneath the present day Al-Aqsa Mosque.  It is beyond any doubt belonging to the time of Herod the Great.  At the edge of the object there is a remnant of black soot from the conflagration.  Actually, this is a piece which enable us to visualize the great fire in which the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.  So this is in touch with the destruction of the Temple.  I can even suggest that the stone could have come from the Temple itself.

  Another piece which is very touching is a piece dating back to the First Temple period, to the time of the Prophet Jeremiah.  It is a bulla, a tiny lump of clay which has on the back side of it an imprint of some fabric.  It probably was the imprint of a satchel that was tied with a string and upon the knot they put a sealing in order to ensure the contents of the satchel which included silver scraps, the hoard of silver of somebody.  The other face of the bulla has the impression of the seal of the owner.  The bulla itself was made in the negative, and the impression is made in the positive.  Eventually someone opened the satchel and the seal got broken.  Nevertheless we have two lines of writing upon it.  It says the name “[Ga’]alyahu” and in the second line, which is well-preserved, we have the name “[son of] Immer”.  The Immer priestly family and another son of the family by the name Pashchur, son of Imer, is mentioned in the book of Jeremiah, chapter twenty, being the man in charge of the Temple.  He was the chief clerk in the Temple.  He is the man who arrested and tortured the Prophet Jeremiah.  The Immer family continues to exist in Jerusalem and we find them in the Post-Exilic period in the Book of Nehemiah (7:40; Ezra 2:37).  So through this tiny bulla we have direct regards from the First Temple, from Solomon’s Temple.  This is of great importance.

  Some other finds which made me especially enthusiastic were some of the coins from the First Revolt against the Romans.  Some of the coins of the late First Revolt are found burned, twisted and defaced from the fire, from the conflagration.  On the first coin that we found we had the slogan of the Zealots and the people who fought the Romans: “for the freedom of Zion.”  It is very touching to see after 2,000 years.  Actually, each and every one of the objects that we find: beads, a piece of early Arabic period, or a piece from Turkish-Ottoman decoration that surrounded the Dome of the Rock, the glazed tiles that we have pieces of, a bead remnant that that were left by Christian pilgrims in the past, or some Bronze Age or Iron Age pottery, all is very significant for the history of the Temple Mount.

  Gordon: You mentioned earlier that you found some bones from foxes.  What is the significant of that?

  Goby: The Prophet Micah prophesized that the Temple Mount would be destroyed (3:12), and that was in the 8^th century BC.  In the 8^th century there was a corruption of the priesthood that calls the prophet to have a prophecy, and he prophesized that the Temple Mount would he desolate and that foxes would walk upon it.  In the book of Lamentation we have also the fact of foxes upon the Temple Mount (5:18).  This of course symbolizes the fact that human activity was not there anymore and the place was desolate.  In Talmudic literature we have a semi-legendary story of Rabbi Akiva, one of the most influential people in Judaism in general (Tractate Makkoth 24b).  Akiva, the son of Joseph, one of the greatest among the sages, is said to have visited Jerusalem after its destruction.  He lived in the 2^nd century of the Common Era and was executed by the Romans in Caesarea.  He is said to have visited the Temple and it said that there he watched a fox come out of the place where the Holy of Holies stood.  Of course, he regarded it as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Micah and maybe the fox we have is the very one he had seen when he came there in the 2^nd century.

  Gordon: Thank you very much Goby.

  This article first appeared in the Winter 2009 issue of Bible and Spade.  Vol. 22, no. 1, pages 3-8.
• 22Apr

  PICTURE POST CARDS FROM THE PSALMISTS

  Jerusalem Comments Off on PICTURE POST CARDS FROM THE PSALMISTS

  By Gordon Franz

  Introduction

  Most Bible believers who live outside the Land of Israel may read Psalm 125:2, “As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the LORD surrounds His people from this time forth and forever,” and think, “Humm, that’s a comforting and encouraging passage.  The Lord surrounds His people.  He protects us and watches over us forever.”  Yet they may not fully appreciate the word picture used by the psalmist in the first part of the verse.

  The ABR sifters had the privilege of being guided through the City of David excavations by Aran Yardeni, an archaeological staff member of the TMSP and a graduate of Bar Ilan University.  We started at an overview of the City of David on the top of a house situated only meters from where David’s palace once stood (Mazar 2007:52-66).  As we read Psalm 125 we looked to the east and saw the range of the Mount of Olives (Zech. 14:4), the southern spur being called the Hill of Corruption (II Kings 23:13).  To the north, we observed Mount Zion, also called Mount Moriah or the Mountain of the LORD (Psalm 48:1, 2; II Chron. 3:1; Micah 4:2).  To the west was the Western Hill called the Mishnah in the Hebrew Bible, and usually translated into English as the  “Second Quarter” (Zeph. 1:10; Jer. 31:39; II Kings 22:14).  Finally, to the south of the city, off in the distance, was the Hill of Evil Counsel.  Today the United Nations headquarters for the Middle East is situated on this ridge!

  The psalmist composed this psalm in the City of David and literally saw the mountains surrounding Jerusalem and used this word picture to convey a dynamic and powerful spiritual truth; the Lord surrounds His people forever!  What an impact that had on each of the sifters.

  Hebrew Hymnbook for the Temple

  The book of Psalms was the Hebrew Hymnbook for both the First and Second Temple and is still used in the synagogues today.  Each psalm was composed by a real people, who were experiencing real events in real places.  This article will present some of those places and put the psalm in its historical context.

  Beautiful in elevation – Psalm 48:2

  A popular song in Evangelical circles is based on Psalm 48.  You know the one: “Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised …”  After touring the City of David, a person will never sing this song the same way again.  On the tours of the City of David that I guide, after walking through Hezekiah’s tunnel and visiting the Pool of Siloam, I usually start walking back up the steep road to the Dung Gate at a very brisk pace.  I wait until somebody in the group “complains” and says, “Stop, slow down, this is such a steep hill to climb!”  At that point I stop and read Psalm 48 to the group.  Verse 2 says, “Beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth; Is Mount Zion on the sides of the north, the city of the Great King.”  From the Pool of Siloam to the top of the Temple Mount is a 106 meters elevation change.  Mount Zion was on the north side of the City of David”.

  The psalmist, one of the “Sons of Korah,” probably lived in the City of David.  He would, on occasion, walk up the hill from his house to Mount Zion, the City of the Great King, in order to minister in the Temple.  It was with joy that he took this strenuous walk because he knew he was going to the place where the LORD resided.  Thus he described this elevation as “beautiful.”  Fortunately for the ABR sifters, Aran arranged for a bus to drive us up the beautiful elevation!

  A City Compact together – Psalm 122:3

  The City of David looks like an elongated tongue protruding from the Temple Mount.  In antiquity, there were houses built on terraces on the slopes of the city.  It seems that houses were practically built one on top of the other.  This is reflected in the words of Psalm 122: “Jerusalem is built as a city that is compact together” (v. 3).  Dr. Yigael Shiloh, the former excavator of the City of David, used to tell his volunteers that excavated with him, “If you want to know what the Cityof David looked like ‘compact together,’ look across the Kidron Valley to the Silwan Village.  It too is built on a slope and the houses appear to be built one on top of the other.”

  At Home in Death – Psalm 49:11

  One afternoon we visited the excavations at Ketef Hinnom below the St. Andrew’s Scottish Presbyterian Church.  Here we studied a series of burial caves from the time of the Judean Monarchy.  One cave in particular was of interest because the two oldest Biblical texts were discovered there in 1979 (Franz 2005:53-59).  When we visited the City of David two days before, we noticed a house in Area G that was built following the pattern of typical Israel four-room house.  Interestingly, the pattern of the burial cave is similar.  After I pointed out the similarities between the house and the burial cave, I read Psalm 49:11: “Their inner thought is that their houses will last forever, Their dwelling places to all generations.”

  In this psalm, the wealthy materialistic person at the end of the 8^th century BC knew that their earthly dwelling place would one-day collapse because it was made of stone, mudbrick, wooden beams and a dried mud roof with grass on top.  This person desired to “live eternally” in his earthly body (Ps. 49:9), yet reality told him otherwise.  Desiring a more permanent dwelling, knowing that one-day death would be the end results, a burial cave was hewn out of the rocky escarpment outside the city and was patterned after his earthly house.  He wanted to feel “at home in death!” (Franz 2005: 59).

  By contrast, the psalmist puts materialism in its proper perspective when he concludes the psalm by saying, “But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave (Sheol), for He shall receive me.  Selah.  Do not be afraid when one becomes rich, when the glory of his house is increased; for when he dies he shall carry nothing away; his glory shall not descend after him.  Though while he lives he blesses himself (for men will praise you when you do well for yourself), he shall go to the generation of his fathers; they shall never see light.  Man who is in honor, yet does not understand, is like the beasts that perish” (Psalm 49:15-20).

  Cave of Adullam – Psalm 57

  After David feigned madness in Gath of the Philistines and fled through the Elah Valley, he hid in a cave at Adullam with 400 of his family and friends (I Sam. 22:1, 2).  On another occasion, David was in the cave while the Philistines were occupying his hometown of Bethlehem.  David wanted a drink of water from the well of the city, so three of his mighty men fetched him some water.  When they returned, David poured out the water before the Lord (I Chron. 11:15-19).  Perhaps on one of these occasions David composed Psalm 57.  While the superscription of the psalm does not say when this occurred or which cave David was in, the psalm follows Psalm 56 which was written when David was captured in Gath (I Sam. 21:10-15).  The order of the psalms seems to hint that it was written when David fled from Saul and hid in the cave of Adullam.

  Green Grass in the Wilderness – Psalm 103:15-18

  David composed a beautiful psalm extolling the character and attributes of God (Ps 103) in which he contrasts the unchangeable and eternal God with humans that are like grass and flowers.  In verses 15-18 David draws on his experiences in the Judean desert.  During the winter months, the desert is green with grass and there are an abundance of flowers if it was a good rainy season.  Soon after Passover, the hot, dry Hamsin winds come off the Arabian Desert and scorch the grass and flowers so they wither away.  David sang, “As for man, his days are like grass, as a flower of the field, so he flourishes.  For the [Hamsin] wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more.  But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting”.  The Prophet Isaiah makes a similar analogy, but he contrasts the shortness of life with the eternality of the Word of God (40:6-8).

  When we went on our Dead Sea Field Trip in June the Judean Desert was dry, brown and desolate.  There was not a blade of green grass, or a single flower to be seen!  Some of the sifters questions what I said about the grass and flowers.  Fortunately our tour hostess, Stephanie, had visited Israel in the springtime a few years earlier and was able to vouch for this phenomenon.

  The summer months are the setting for another psalm composed by David when he was in the Wilderness of Judah.  He wrote: “O God, You are my God; early will I seek You; my soul thirsts for You; my flesh longs for You in a dry and thirsty land where there is no water” (63:1).

  Masada and the Psalms

  I should preface my comments about the passages on Masada in the psalms by recounting a story.  While teaching at the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem, I was invited to speak to a Christian tour group in one of the local hotels.  The tour host never took his groups to Masada because, as he put it, “The site is post-resurrection [of Jesus], thus unimportant.”  One elderly lady in the group asked me quite piously and condescendingly, “You don’t take your groups to Masada, do you?”  I knew where that question was coming from.  I smiled and said, “Of course I do, it’s a very important Biblical site.  King David visited the site on at least three occasions and composed several psalms that mention Masada!”  The shocked look on her face was one of those priceless Kodak moments! J  She told the group leader of our conversation.  He examined the passages and from that point on, he took his groups to Masada.

  The word “Masada” in the Hebrew Bible is generally translated “stronghold” or “fortress” in the English Bibles.  David visited the site on at least three occasions.  The first time he saw it was when he was fleeing from Saul.  After his family joined him in the cave of Adullam (I Sam. 22:1, 2), David decided to take them to the Land of Moab and ask the king of Moab to let them stay under his protection in his land.  David and his entourage would have gone past Masada as they forded the Dead Sea at the Lisan (“tongue”).

  As David passed by, he would have noted the strategic and military value of Masada.  The mountain plateau was situated 360 meters above the plain floor on the southeastern edge of the Wilderness of Judah, opposite the Lisan of the Dead Sea.  Strategically, from the top of the site, David would have a commanding view of the Dead Sea region and the eastern slopes of the Wilderness of Judah.  If there was any large troop movement by Saul, or even the Philistines, he could quickly escape across the Lisan to Moab.  Militarily, he also noticed the site had steep sides all around it with only one accessible path to the top on the eastern side of the mountain, today called the “Snake Path.”  It was easily defensible from any attackers because of its elevation and the single path to the top.  The defenders on top could easily roll down boulders of rocks to stop any attackers.

  David made good on his observations and stayed at the “stronghold” (Masada) after he left his parents in Moab.  As long as there was water on top of the mountain, David felt safe and secure and did not want to leave.  It was not until the prophet Gad came and told David to leave, that he left for the Forest of Hereth in the Land of Judah (I Sam. 22:4, 5).

  The second time David and his men went to Masada was after he spared Saul’s life at Ein Gedi.  The Bible says, “And Saul went home, and David and his men went up to the stronghold” (I Sam. 24:22).  Here was the “parting of the ways” between Saul and David.  Saul goes northwest, back to his palace at Gibeah of Saul, and David goes south to the stronghold situated 18 km to the south of Ein Gedi.

  The third time we know of David at Masada is after he was anointed king of all Israel in Hebron.  The Bible says, “All the Philistines went up to search for David.  And David heard of it and went down to the stronghold” (II Sam. 5:17).  Notice the topographical indicators in this passage.  Hebron (Tel Rumeida) is situated 944 meters above sea level.  The base of Masada is 300 meters below sea level.  David literally went down to Masada.

  Masada was extensively excavated by Professor Yigael Yadin in the early 1960’s.  Most of the excavations concentrated on the Early Roman period remains built by Herod the Great and used by the defenders at the end of the First Jewish Revolt in AD 73.  Yadin, however, also found 10^th century BC, Iron Age pottery scattered on the surface (1966:202).  Perhaps some of the 10^th century pottery was left by David and his men.

  David composed at least four psalms in which he mentions Masada.  The first psalm is Psalm 18.  This psalm was written on the “day that the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul” (18: superscription).  In it he sings, “I will love You, O LORD, my strength.  The LORD is my rock and my fortress (Masada) and my deliverer; My God, my strength, in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold (lit. “high tower”)” (18:1, 2).

  The second psalm is Psalm 31.  Again David sings, “In You, O LORD, I put my trust; Let me never be ashamed; Deliver me in your righteousness.  Bow down Your ear to me, Deliver me speedily; Be my rock of refuge, a fortress (Masada) of defense to save me.  For you are my rock and my fortress (Masada); Therefore, for Your name’s sake, Lead me and guide me” (31:1-3).

  The Hebrew word “Masada” is also used in Psalm 66:11 and is translated into English as “net” (NKJV; NASB) or “prison” (NIV).

  The third psalm that uses Masada is Psalm 71.  It is uninscribed, but most likely written by David.  In it he sings: “In You, O LORD, I put my trust; Let me never be put to shame. … Be my strong refuge, To which I may resort continually; You have given the commandment to save me, For you are my rock and my fortress (Masada)” (71:1, 3).

  The fourth psalm composed by David that mentioned Masada is Psalm 144.  In this psalm he sang: “Blessed be the LORD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle –  My loving-kindness and my fortress (Masada), My high tower and my deliverer, My shield and the One in whom I take refuge, Who subdues my people under me” (144:1, 2).

  One other psalm mentions a “stronghold.”  Psalm 91 is uninscribed, but some commentators attribute it to Moses and suggest it is a continuation of Psalm 90.  The superscription of that psalm says: “A Prayer of Moses the man of God.”  In Psalm 91 it starts out: “He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.  I will say of the LORD, ‘He is my refuge and my fortress (Masada), My God, in Him I will trust” (91:1, 2).

  This would have been a psalm David knew by heart.  He understood theologically that the LORD was his fortress / stronghold and his trust was in God.  Perhaps when he saw Masada for the first time, it reminded him of the Lord.  After staying there on several occasions, he came to realize, as secure as this rocky plateau may seem, the Lord truly was his Masada!

  The Ein Gedi Cave and Ibex

  Another stop on our Dead Sea Field Trip was the overlook at the Ein Gedi Field School.  There was a great view of the waterfall in the Nahal David, the spring and tel of Ein Gedi and the ancient terraces on the slopes of the mountains.  Somewhere in the area, David hid in a cave when he fled from King Saul (I Sam. 24).  Psalm 142 was composed “in a cave”.  This might have been the context of this psalm.

  The name Ein Gedi means the “spring of the young goat.”  Whether it is the domesticated goat or the ibex, the mountain goat, is unclear.  David mentions them in Psalm 104:18, as does Job (39:1).  Ein Gedi is a nature reserve so the animals are protected, so we were fortunate to see a few ibex “up close and personal’.

  Casting Our Sins into the Dead Sea

  The prophet Micah admonished the people of Israel to “cast all our sins into the depth of the sea” (7:19-20).  The word-picture that Micah has in view is the sacrifice in the Temple.  The priest would offer a sacrifice for a person, but the blood of the sacrifice could only “atone” (cover) for the sins of the offerer, but it could never take the sins away.  From the Temple Mount, the blood was washed down a pipe into the Kidron Valley and this blood mingled with the water as it flowed through the Wilderness of Judah to the Dead Sea.  This sea is the deepest surface of water anywhere on the face of the earth, some 400 meters below sea level.  It is also the saltiest body of water and nothing lives in it.

  In the Temple economy, sins were covered (“atoned for”) but never taken away.  That is why the offerer had to offer a new offering each time he fell into sin.  Yet when the Lord Jesus Christ, God manifest in human flesh, died on the Cross, He paid for all the sins of all humanity (I John 2:2) and there is no need for any more sacrifices (Heb. 10:1-18).  God has forgiven, and forgotten, all the sins of those who put their trust in His Son.  The prophet Jeremiah proclaimed the New Covenant that was made with the House of Israel and Judah, and by extension, those in the Church.  In it, God proclaimed that the “sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:34; quoted also in Heb. 8:12 and 10:17).

  What the prophet Micah is saying is this: based on the mercy of God, our sins are cast into the depth of the [Dead] Sea.  What God has forgiven, God has forgotten.  God does not want His children to go fishing for something that does not exist (our sins)!  We can thank the Lord Jesus for paying for all our sins and be assured of the promise of God, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to [continually] cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (I John 1:9).

  Summing Up the Field Trips

  One of the sifters, Paula Owen, commented that this trip was: “An incredible journey of a lifetime – that would be the bottom line description of the TMSP!!  I can truly say that never have I learned so many valuable Biblical facts at one time, as I did on this trip!!  By Day #2 my brain went to the overload mode in the pure excitement and pleasure of this archaeological adventure.  It was so overwhelming!”

  The history, archaeology and geography of the Land of the Bible can enrich ones reading of the Word of God.  The psalms were written by real people, experiencing real events in real places.  To see the psalms in their context could enhance our worship of the Lord God.

  We took the words of Psalm 48 to heart and acted upon them.  “Walk about Zion, and go all around her.  Count her towers; mark well her bulwarks; consider her palaces; that you may tell it to the generation following” (48:12, 13).  I trust the background information and the spiritual truths learned by each sifter will be passed on to other people, and thus, another generation.

  Bibliography

  Franz, Gordon

  2002   “At Home in Death”:  An Archaeological Exposition of Psalm 49:11.  Bible and Spade 15/3: 85-91.

  2005   “Remember, Archaeology is NOT a Treasure Hunt!”  Bible and Spade 18/2: 53-59.

  2007   Archaeology, Assyrian Reliefs and the Psalms of the Sons of Korah.  Bible and Spade 20/1: 13-24.

  Mazar, Eilat

  2007   Preliminary Report on the City of David Excavations 2005 at the Visitors Center Area.  Jerusalem and New York: Shalem.

  Yadin, Yigael

  1966   Masada.  Herods Fortress and the Zealots Last Stand.  Jerusalem: Steimatzky.  Reprinted 1984.

  This article appeared in the Winter 2009 issue of Bible and Spade, vol. 22, no. 1, pages 14-19.
• 22Apr

  WAS “BABYLON” DESTROYED WHEN JERUSALEM FELL IN AD 70? – part 1

  Prophecy Comments Off on WAS “BABYLON” DESTROYED WHEN JERUSALEM FELL IN AD 70? – part 1

  By Gordon Franz

  In the ongoing Rapture Debate, one of the points the Preterists love to attack the proponents of the Pre Trib Rapture is the identification of Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18 (DeMar 2001:115-130).  The Preterist propose the Babylon was Jerusalem and they see the fulfillment of these passages in the destruction of the city in AD 70.

  In 1999 I gave a paper at the annual meeting of the Pre-Trib Research Center entitled, “The Preterist View of Jerusalem: Are the “Fulfillments” Historically Accurate?”  In the paper, I agreed with the Preterists on the identification of Babylon with Jerusalem.  However, I strongly disagreed with their dating of the fulfillment.  I sent John Noe, the president of the Prophecy Reformation Institute and a leading preterist, a copy of my paper.  He found the paper interesting and commented, “I think you may be on your way to becoming a preterist.”  (Personal letter to author, Feb. 11, 2000).  I encouraged Mr. Noe to, “not hold your breath on me becoming a preterist.  The more I read preterist literature, the more historical problems I see with the position!” (Personal letter to Mr. Noe, Feb. 24, 2000).

  I believe we can agree with the Preterist on the identification of Babylon with Jerusalem, however, we must categorically reject their claims that the prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70.  This chapter will demonstrate that there is no credible historical evidence to show that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 fulfilled Bible prophecy the way the Preterist claim.

  Dr. Toussaint gave a paper at the 1995 Pre Trib meeting entitled “A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse”.  In the Q & A session, someone asked if there was a good book that refuted the preterist position from a historical perspective.  The questioner observed that the Preterists were “historical revisionists” who took history and made it fit their viewpoint.  When no book was mentioned, he went on to challenge one of the “history buffs [in the group] to dig into it.”  Having worked on archaeological excavations, I like to dig, so I accepted the challenge.  This chapter is the part of the fruit of that challenge.

  The subject of Jerusalem is near and dear to my heart.  I have lived, on and off, in the City of the Great King for over 20 years guiding field trips, working on excavations in and around Jerusalem, and ministering in one of the local assemblies.  I am confident that I have a good working knowledge of the history and archaeology of that great city.  So let’s “dig into the subject.”

  Before we do, I need to make a few preliminary remarks.  It has been my objective to read the Preterist material and let them speak for themselves.  I do not want to know what we think they say; I want to know what they say!

  The questioner on the tape referred to the preterists as “historical revisionists”, a remark I would give a hearty “Amen!” to.  It has been my observation that the preterists have a very vivid imagination when it comes to taking historical facts and twisting them to fit the Biblical text.

  I must also confess, at first I was very intimidated by their bitter sarcasm and name-calling.  But the more of their material I read, the more I become convinced they are wrong.  We “Pre-Trib-er’s” have no need to be intimidated by their position.  If one sits down with an open Bible, a good translation of Josephus, and reads the Preterist material carefully (by checking the footnotes and comparing what the proponents say, with what the Bible and Josephus say), one will see that the Preterist view does not have any historical justification.

  I talked with Edward Stevens and John Noe, two leading proponents of preterism, at the 1999 Evangelical Theological Society meeting in Boston.  One of my questions was “What is the best Preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation?”  In unison, both responded, “David Chilton’s Days of Vengeance.”  In this paper, I would like to focus my attention on this commentary.

  I would also like to make one comment about the Pre-Trib position.  The biggest problem with the Pre-Trib position is NOT the exegesis of the text, but the eisegesis of the text (reading into the text, that which does not belong there) by the date setters and sensationalists!  I was struck by the similarities between the eisegesis of the Preterist on the one hand and that of the sensationalists and date setters within the Pre-Trib position on the other.

  The Preterist View

  The Preterist view has been defined as that view which “holds that the book of Revelation was mostly fulfilled in the first century with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  Thus, most of the aspects (such as the Beast, the Great Tribulation, the fall of Babylon, and Armageddon) have already occurred” (Balyeat 1991:226).  Within the Preterist camp, there are two positions, the Full Preterist position and the Partial Preterist position.  R. C. Sproul, a Partial Preterist, calls the Full Preterist position “radical preterism” because “all future prophecies in the NT have already been fulfilled” (1998:24).  Chilton would call them “consistent preterists” (1987:264).  Sproul would call himself a “moderate preterist” because “many future prophecies in the NT have already been fulfilled.  Some crucial prophecies have not yet been fulfilled” (1998:24).  R. C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, Gary De Mar, and others champion the partial preterist position.  John Noe, Edward Stevens, David Chilton right before his death, espouses the Full Preterist view.  When I talked with Stevens and Noe at the ETS meeting, they said that Sproul and DeMar are heading toward the Full Preterist position, but Gentry is not.  The Full Preterist position is making inroads into the theological world and the Pre-Tribulation position is beginning to respond to the position.

  One of the key tenets of the Preterist position is that the Babylon mentioned in the Book of Revelation is Jerusalem of AD 70.  They would say that the judgment that was poured out on this Babylon was fulfilled with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem in AD 70.  Kenneth Gentry summarizes the evidence for Jerusalem as being the Harlot Babylon in a footnote in his book, Before Jerusalem Fell.  “(1) Both are called ‘the great city’ (Rev. 14:8; 11:8).  (2) The Harlot is filled with the blood of the saints (cp. Rev. 16:6; 17:6; 18:21,24; with Matt. 23:34-38; Luke 13:33; Acts 7:51-52).  (3) Jerusalem had previously been called by pagan names quite compatible with the designation ‘Babylon’ (cp. Rev. 14:8 and 17:5 with 11:8).  (4) Rome could not fornicate against God, for only Jerusalem was God’s wife (Rev. 17:2-5, cp. Isa. 1:20; Jer. 31:31).  (5) There is an obvious contrast between the Harlot and the chaste bride (cp. Rev. 17:2-5 with Rev. 21:1ff) that suggests a contrast with the Jerusalem below and the Jerusalem above (Rev. 21:2; cp. Gal. 4:24ff.; Heb. 12:18ff.).  The fact that the Harlot is seated on the seven-headed Beast (obviously representative of Rome) indicates not identity with Rome, but alliance with Rome against Christianity (cp. Matt. 23:37ff.; John 19:6-16; Acts 17:7)” (1998:240,241, footnote 26).  In the preface of the new edition he expands on these ideas (1998:liv-lxvi).  There are other studies that elaborate on this subject (Ford 1975; Balyeat 1991; Preston 1999; Davies 2000; Holford 2001).

  The Dating of Revelation

  Another key tenet of Preterism is dating the Book of Revelation to before AD 70.  The strongest defense for the pre-AD 70 date in recent years has been by Kenneth Gentry, Jr. entitled Before Jerusalem Fell, Dating the Book of Revelation (1998, Revised Edition).  This book is a reworking of his doctoral dissertation from Whitefield Theological Seminary in Lakeland, Florida.

  Most Preterists believe that the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation predict the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.  If this is the case, than the Book of Revelation has to be written before the destruction of the city.  If, on the other hand, it was written during the reign of Emperor Domitian (AD 95) than their whole scenario of the destruction of Jerusalem falls apart.  Gentry recognizes this when he reviewed Chilton’s commentary on Revelation.  He says, “if it could be demonstrated that Revelation were written 25 years after the Fall of Jerusalem, Chilton’s entire labor would go up in smoke” (1987:11).  In his own book he states, “If the book was written two and one-half decades after the destruction of the Temple, however, then the prophecies are necessarily open to an extrapolation into the distant future, and to the exclusion of the important events of AD 67-70.  Hence, the whole bearing of Revelation on New Testament eschatology may well be altered by the determination of the matter before us” (Gentry 1998:21).

  It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the date of the book of Revelation.  The reader is invited to read Mark Hitchcock’s chapter in this volume.  I have not been convinced by Gentry’s arguments for the pre-AD 70 date of the book of Revelation, called the “early date”.  I believe the best evidence points to the writing of the book during the reign of Emperor Domitian about AD 95, called the “late date” (Thomas 1994).  I will, however, make a few observations about the “early date” for Revelation.

  The Acts of John

  Gentry comes up with an interesting scenario to get around the writer of the apocryphal The Acts of John clear statement that John wrote the book of Revelation on Patmos during Domitian’s reign.  He acknowledges a Domitianic exile, but suggests that “the rationale for the exile is suggestive of a prior publication of Revelation.  It could be that John was banished twice, once under Nero and later under Domitian (which would explain the two traditions of a Neronic and Domitianic exile)” (1998:100).  He then gives selective quotes from The Acts of John to show that Revelation was written earlier.  Let’s look at the account.

  “And the fame of the teaching of John was spread abroad in Rome; and it came to the ears of Domitian that there was a certain Hebrew in Ephesus, John by name, who spread a report about the seat of empire of the Romans, saying that it would quickly be rooted out, and that the kingdom of the Romans would be given over to another.”  It should be noted that there is no reference to the book of Revelation in this passage.  The sayings could well have been from the oral teachings of John that made it to Rome.  After all, Rome was at the other end of the Ephesus – Rome maritime trade route.  The teachings of John would have been based on the Old Testament prophets and the parables and discourses of the Lord Jesus.   Gentry proceeds to leave out a very important part of the passage.  The text goes on to say when John arrives in Rome, Domitian asks him about his teachings.  “Art thou John who said that my kingdom would speedily be uprooted, and that another king, Jesus, was going to reign instead of me?  And John answered and said to him: Thou also shalt reign for many years given thee by God, and after thee very many others; and when the times of the things upon earth has been fulfilled, out of heaven shall come a King, eternal, true, Judge of living and dead, to whom every nation and tribe shall confess, through whom every earthly power and dominion shall be brought to nothing, and every mouth speaking great things shall be shut.  This is the mighty Lord and King of everything that hath breath and flesh, the Word and Son of the living One, who is Jesus Christ.”  It is obvious why Gentry does not quote this part.  It sounds pretty futuristic to me!  After John demonstrates his power by drinking deadly poison [cf. Mark 16:18], and raising a couple of people from the dead, Domitian banishes him to an island.  The last part of Gentry’s quote is, “And Domitian, astonished at all the wonders, sent him away to an island, appointing for him a set time.  And straightway John sailed to Patmos.”  Unfortunately for Gentry, the sentence does not end there.  It goes on to say, “where also he was deemed worthy to see the revelation of the end” (ANF 8:560-562).  The Acts of John clearly support the “late date” for the writing of Revelation and a futuristic view of prophecy, not the fulfillment in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem.  Yet Gentry seems to be selective in his quotes to prove his point.

  The Seven Stars on the Coins of the Emperors

  Chilton comments on the phrase “In His right hand He held seven stars” in Revelation 1:16.  “The symbolic use of seven stars was quite well known in the first century, for the seven stars appeared regularly on the Emperor’s coins as a symbol of his supreme political sovereignty.  At least some early readers of Revelation must have gasped in amazement at St. John’s audacity in stating that the seven stars were in Christ’s hand.  The Roman emperors had appropriated to themselves a symbol of dominion that the Bible reserves for God alone – and, St. John is saying, Jesus Christ has come to take it back.  The seven stars, and with them all things in creation, belong to Him.  Dominion resides in the right hand of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1987:75.76).

  Chilton is generally very good at documenting his statements with reliable sources.  Most serious preterist works abound with footnotes.  This is very helpful for readers to follow up on the writer’s statements.  However, this statement is not footnoted at all.  A few points should be clarified.  First, the coins of emperors with seven stars on them did not appear regularly until the end of the first century and beginning of the second century AD.  Second, the stars on coins generally symbolize the “idea of divinity or of mortals who have joined the stars, as it were, and become gods” (Jones 1990:297).  The idea of sovereignty comes from a coin of Emperor Domitian’s deceased and deified son sitting on a globe (representative of the earth) reaching for the seven stars (Franz 1999:47-49; Janzen 1994:644-647).  Third, Chilton also has a problem with the dating of the seven star coins.  The first seven star coins that were minted during the Imperial period were struck on the island of Crete during the reigns of Caligula (AD 37-41) and Claudius (AD 41-54) and Nero (AD 54-68).  For pictures, see Plates 54 and 55, coins 963 – 970, 974, 975; Burnett, Amandry and Ripolles 1992:1/2).  A monumental work on Roman provincial coins states the seven stars “represent the Septentriones, the Great Bear; this constellation had a particular connection with Crete as the nurses of Zeus, Helice and Kynosoura, were placed in the heavens as the Great and Little Bear.  Therefore the seven stars linked with the cult image of Augustus brought him into a close relationship with Zeus Cretagenes” (Burnett, Amandry and Ripolles 1992:1/1: 230).  These coins, however, were for “local circulation” and were not widely circulated off the island of Crete (1992:1/1: 231).  It is doubtful most people in the Roman world would have been aware of these coins.

  A second coin was struck in Spain and Gaul during the Civil War (AD 68-70).  According to Chilton, after the book of Revelation was written.  This denarii coin, of the “Divvs Augustus” type, had a crescent and seven stars on the reverse side with Augustus on the obverse side (Sutherland 1984:211, no. 95).  It was observed by Sutherland that “the stars and crescent of no. 95 … are borrowed from Republican times” (1984:200).  What the meaning of the seven stars in the Republican period is unclear, but at that time, there were seven known planets and some have suggested that the stars represented the planets and the crescent the moon.

  Most of the seven star coins come from the end of the first century AD.  The coin of Domitian with his son sitting on the globe with his hand stretched out to the seven stars is unique (Mattingly and Sydenham 1926:179, no. 209A, Plate V: 86).  Others coins with the seven stars and the crescent were struck during the reign of Trajan (Mattingly and Sydenham 1926:307, no. 785) as well as Hadrian in the year AD 119  (Mattingly and Sydenham 1926:362, no. 202; 381, no. 358; 434, no. 731).  Mattingly and Sydenham, two numismatics experts, interpret the seven stars and crescent as “natural symbols of immortality in an age which sought immortality in the stars.  It is probably the memory of Trajan that is here honoured.  The seven stars of the second type may be purely conventional – a representation of the ‘Septenttiones’, the seven stars of the Great Bear” (1926:324).  The argument of the seven stars better fits the “late date” for the Book of Revelation, not the Nero date.

  Historical Fulfillment?

  Under the subtitle “The Ease of Application to the Jewish Wars”, Gentry notes that “much of Revelation’s vivid imagery lends itself admirably to the catastrophic events of the Jewish War” (1998:239).  He ends the paragraph with the statement, “But, with a number of the distinctive elements, there are simply too many converging lines of evidence pointing to the Jewish Wars to allow for this argument’s hasty a priori dismissal” (1998:239).  Is this really the case, or can we dismiss the “fulfillments” as historically inaccurate?

  Before we look at the “historical fulfillments” we should consider Josephus and his writings.  First, Josephus is a reliable witness to the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem.  He was born into a priestly family on his father’s side and the royal Hasmonean family on his mother’s side (Life 1,2; LCL 1:3).  He was raised in the city of Jerusalem.  He knew the geography and buildings of the city well and it is reflected in his writings.  After he pulled his “Benedict Arnold” routine at Yotapata in Galilee, he became the historian of the Flavian family, which included the soon-to-be emperor Vespasian and his son, Titus.  Josephus was also an eyewitness to the fall of Jerusalem with a very good vantage-point, sitting in the tent of Titus Caesar!  One should also acknowledge his bias.  At certain points Josephus tries to justify his actions that might be seen by his Jewish readers in a negative light.  Many Jews would ask why did he not commit suicide after convincing his fellow countrymen to do so after the fall of Yotapata?  In addition, he was a beneficiary of the Flavian family (Emperor Vespasian and his sons Titus and Domitian).  He also received Roman citizenship from Vespasian as well as compensation for his land in Jerusalem by Titus.  He had a privileged position in Rome (Life 422, 423; LCL 1:155).

  Second, the references to the book, chapter, section, paragraphs, and verses of Josephus’ works can sometimes be confusing.  It is my observation that most Preterist (and most evangelicals for that matter) use the William Whiston edition of The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus.  Within the scholarly community, however, most use the ten volumes, Greek and English, Loeb Classical Library edition (LCL).  The numbering system between the two editions can be confusing.  Fortunately for the user there is a very helpful tool for cross-referencing these works.  In 1984, H. Douglas Buckwalter and Mary Keil compiled a Guide to the Reference Systems for the Works of Flavius Josephus for the Department of Theological Studies at the Wheaton Graduate School.  It was recently published in the ETS monograph series (1995).  In this paper, I will use the Loeb Classical Library reference numbers and translation.

  The Third Seal (Rev. 6:5,6)

  The Third Seal describes a man riding a black horse and holding a pair of scales in his hands.  A voice says, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not harm the oil and wine.”  The Preterist sees this as the famine that resulted from the siege of Jerusalem prior to its destruction.  Several passages from Josephus are quoted in attempt to prove their point (Gentry 1999:243, footnote 35; Chilton 1987:189-191).  This judgment does describe a famine, but what causes the famine?  The answer lies in the phrase “do not harm the oil and wine.”  M. Ford in the Anchor Bible commentary on Revelation as attributing the warning to an order from Titus not to disturb the olive groves and vineyards (1987:191, footnote 15; Ford 1975:107).  Ford is actually quoting a French book but gives no primary source for the statement.  Gentry suggests that the phrase “may even be that the reference to ‘the oil and the wine’ finds expression in the adulteration of the sacred oil and wine by the Jews themselves; Wars 5:13:6″ (1999:243, footnote 33).

  I believe that the proper understanding of the phrase “spare the oil and wine” is found in an event recorded in I Sam. 12.  Heavy rains during the wheat harvest would bring disaster for the wheat farmer.  The context of I Sam 12 is the nation of Israel’s call for a king “like the other nations” and the rejection of the LORD as King.  “Is today not the wheat harvest?  I (Samuel) will call to the LORD, and He will send thunder and rain, that you may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which you have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking for a king for yourselves” (12:17). The people cried out, “Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die…” (12:19).

  People do not die from thunder and rain!  However, as Nogah Hareuveni of Neot Kedumim, the Biblical Gardens in Israel, has pointed out, “The ripe, heavy-eared wheat can suffer from a downpour not only through physical damage from the force of the wind-driven rain, but also by rotting from the sudden moisture combined with the high temperatures that prevail in Israel by Shavuot (in late May – early June).  This interpretation explains why the Israelites cried out to Samuel to ‘pray … to save us from death’ (I Sam. 12:19) – from death by starvation that would follow the destruction of the grain crop” (1988:25).  Mildew is one of the results of disobedience to the Word of God (Deut. 28:22; I Kings 8:28 // II Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9; Hag. 2:17; Boronski 1987:158-160).

  I experienced such a phenomenon in June of 1992.  For two days, Israel was hit with heavy rains during the wheat harvest and the wheat was devastated by mildew.  Ironically, it was right before the national elections when people were crying out “Itzhaq, melek Yisrael! Itzhaq, melek Yisrael”  (Itzhaq, king of Israel) at their election rallies!

  The third seal judgment is an untimely rainstorm during the wheat harvest that destroys a great portion of the crop in Israel and the rest of the Mediterranean world.  The demand for wheat, plus the shortage in supply, will lead to higher prices for all.  The olive trees and grapevines, the “oil and wine”, will not be affected by this rainstorm because they will have already been pollinated.  In fact, the water might even help them.  Thus giving oil and wine for all, rich and poor alike (Franz 2000: 9-11).
• 22Apr

  WAS “BABYLON” DESTROYED WHEN JERUSALEM FELL IN AD 70? – part 2

  Prophecy Comments Off on WAS “BABYLON” DESTROYED WHEN JERUSALEM FELL IN AD 70? – part 2

  By Gordon Franz

  The First Trumpet (Rev. 8:7)

  John describes the first trumpet judgment as, “The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the earth; and a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up” (8:7).

  Chilton interprets this passage by saying, “St. John sees hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown onto the Land.  The blood of the slain witnesses [I assume the martyrs of the fifth seal, Rev. 6:9-11] is mixed with the fire from the altar, bringing wrath down upon the persecutors.  The result of the curse … is the burning of a third of the Land and a third of the trees, and all the green grass (i.e., all the grass on a third of the Land; cf. 9:4).  If the trees and grass represent the elect remnant (as they seem to in 7:3 and 9:4), this indicates that they are not exempt from physical suffering and death as God’s wrath is visited upon the wicked” (1987:236).

  Several observations should be made at this point.  First, Chilton does not indicate if the hail is literal or not.  If it is not literal, he does not identify what the hail represents.  Later in his book he identifies the hail as something other than hailstones (1987: 417,418).  Second, Chilton makes a qualifying statement, “if the trees and grass represents the elect remnant” and then refers to two passages elsewhere in the book of Revelation.  Do the trees and grass represent the elect remnant?  Rev. 7:3 makes a distinction between the earth, sea and trees and the “servants of our God.”  The Apostle John uses the word “and” to distinguish the trees from the servants.  In Rev. 9:4 the demonic “locusts” were commanded not to harm the grass and trees but “only those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads.”  In an actual locust plague, the locusts would eat vegetation (i.e. grass or leaves of trees) not attack human beings.  In the case of the demonic “locusts” they were not to attack vegetation but human beings and in particular, those who did not have the seal of God.  In either case the grass and trees do not represent the elect remnant.

  Chilton tries to find a literal fulfillment during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70.  He says, “Literally, the vegetation of Judea, and especially of Jerusalem, would be destroyed in the Roman scorched-earth methods of warfare” (1987:237).  He then quotes a passage from Wars 6:6-8 describing the desolation of Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside caused by the war.  What Chilton does not say is why the Romans cut down the trees.  The passage before the one quoted by Chilton says, “The Romans, meanwhile, though sorely harassed in the collection of timbers, had completed their earthworks in one and twenty days, having, already stated, cleared the whole district around the town to a distance of ninety furlongs” (Wars 6:5: LCL 3:379).  Elsewhere Josephus says “the trees were felled and the suburbs rapidly stripped; but while the timber was being collected for the earthworks and the whole army busily engaged in the work, the Jews on their side were not inactive” (Wars 5:263,264; LCL 3:283).  Later on, Josephus writes, “though timber was now procured with difficulty [for the erection of earth-works]; for, all the trees round the city having been felled for the previous works, the troops had to collect fresh material from a distance of ninety furlong” (Wars 5:522,523; LCL 3:363).  The Romans cut down the wood in order to use it to build earthworks for its siege of Jerusalem, not to burn as a “scorched earth” policy.

  This conclusion is in marked contrast with the prediction by John of the first trumpet judgment, “a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up” as a result of hail and fire, mixed with blood thrown to earth (apparently from heaven).  The first trumpet was not literally fulfilled in AD 70.

  The Second Trumpet (Rev. 8:8,9)

  In the second trumpet judgment, John sees a great mountain burning with fire thrown into the sea and a third of the sea became blood and a third of the sea creatures died.  Also a third of the ships were destroyed.

  Chilton identifies the mountain as the nation of Israel because they are “the mountain of God’s inheritance” (Ex. 15:17) (1987:238).  A careful reading of Ex. 15:17 shows that Israel is separate from the mountain.  “You [the LORD] will bring them [Your people = Israel, of verse 16] in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, in the place, O LORD, which You have made for Your own dwelling.  The sanctuary, O LORD, which Your hands have established.”  The mountain, in the context, is Mt. Zion in Jerusalem where God would eventually dwell (Ps. 48).

  Chilton does not interpret the sea becoming blood or the sea creatures dying, or the ships being destroyed.  It would be better to see this “burning mountain” as a volcano somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea during the Tribulation period.  The descriptions that follow, the sea turning to blood, sea creatures dying and the ships destroyed, are known phenomenona connected with volcanic activity (Bent 1888:817).

  The Sixth Trumpet (Rev. 9:13-21)

  The sixth trumpet judgment begins with the sixth angel releasing four angels that are bound at the Euphrates River.  Their job was to kill one third of mankind.  The army lead by the angels had “myriads of myriads” horsemen.  The NASB and the NKJV give the number as “two hundred million” horsemen.  Chilton argues that the number “simply means many thousands, and indicates a vast host that is to be thought of in connection with the Lord’s angelic army of thousands upon thousands of chariots” (1987:251).  Yet he goes on to say, “as it actually worked out in history, the Jewish rebellion in reaction to the ‘locust plague’ of Gessius Florus during the summer of 66 provoked Cestius’ invasion of Palestine in the fall, with large numbers of mounted troops from the regions near the Euphrates (although the main point of St. John’s reference is the symbolic significance of the river in Biblical history and prophecy)” (1987:252).  He cites Josephus, Wars ii.xviii.9-xix.7 (2:499-545, LCL 2:517-535) and J. M. Ford’s Anchor Bible Commentary on Revelation (page 154).  She in turn cites a French work by S. Giet.  Is this the case?  I do not think so.

  For a good overview of the Cestius Gallus campaign against Judea, see Gichon 1981.  Josephus records Cestius’ preparation in Antioch (Pliny the Elder places the Euphrates River 175 Roman miles from Antioch.  Natural History 5:67; 6:126; LCL 2:269,433) for the “invasion of Palestine” (Chilton’s words). [For the use of the word “Palestine” before AD 135 see, Jacobson 1999:65-74]   “He accordingly left Antioch, taking with him the twelfth legion in full strength (5,400 infantry and 120 cavalry), two thousand picked men from each of the other legions (6,000 more men from the 3^rd, 6^th, and 10^th Legions) and in addition six cohorts of infantry (500 soldiers in a cohort, so another 3,000 men), and four squadrons of cavalry (I am not able to determine how many four squadrons are); beside these he had the auxiliary contingents furnished by the kings, of which Antiochus supplied two thousand horse (2,000) and three thousand foot (3,000), all archers, Agrippa an equal number of foot (3,000) and rather less than two thousand horse (-2,000), Soaemus following with four thousand, of which one-third were cavalry (1,333) and the majority archers (2,666).   … Further auxiliaries in very large numbers were collected from the towns” (Wars 2:500-502, LCL 2:517,519).  The organized army had just over 23,000+ infantry and about 5,500 cavalry.  The 5,500 does not come close to the 200 million in the text, but then again, that is why Chilton interprets it as “many thousands”!

  The horsemen were instructed to kill one third of all “mankind” (9:15) and were successful in this task (9:18).  Chilton ignores this number and attributes no fulfillment to it.  If he were consistent with his position, the Roman army under Cestius, would have had to kill one third of “Israel” in their attack against Jerusalem.  Is this the case?  I do not believe so.  Of the Jews, he records, “Their (the Jews) own losses had been quite inconsiderable” (Wars 2:555, LCL 2:537).  At one point he records 22 being killed in a skirmish with the Romans (Wars 2:519, LCL 2:525).  The irony is that the Romans and their allies lost “five thousand three hundred infantry and four hundred and eighty of the cavalry” (Wars 2:555, LCL 2:537).  That was one fifth of the Roman forces!  But one third of mankind or Israel were not killed.

  Chilton realizes this problem and makes a creative excuse for the Jews.  “The retreat of Cestius was of course taken to mean that Christ’s prophecies of Jerusalem’s destruction were false: The armies from the Euphrates had come and surrounded Jerusalem (cf. Luke 21:20), but the threatened ‘desolation’ had not come to pass. … The Jews recklessly plunged ahead into greater acts of rebellion, unaware that even greater forces beyond the Euphrates were being readied for battle” (1987:258).  The problem with this interpretation is that the text does not say what he tries to make it say!

  Earthquakes in the Book of Revelation

  The word “earthquake” is used seven times in the Book of Revelation to describe five different earthquakes (Rev. 6:12; 8:5; 11:13 [twice], 19; 16:18 [twice]).

  The first earthquake occurs during the sixth seal (Rev. 6:12).  It is called a “great earthquake” and is connected with other cosmic disturbances (6:12-17).  Chilton calls this seal judgement a “de-creation”, or “God ripping apart and dissolving the fabric of creation” (1987:196).  The pattern of this judgment is based on the order of creation (i.e. earth, sun, moon, stars, firmament, land and man).  The first judgment is the earthquake, and its imagery is the destabilization (of earth?).  A number of Scriptures are quoted but Chilton does not say if this earthquake actually occurred.  Another preterist says that earthquakes are “the symbol of revolution, the shaking up of the nations in their various places.  It is the figure of the agitations, upheavals, resulting in the revolutions and wars of Matthew 24:29.  It is the symbol of divine judgment on the nations persecuting the cause of the Lamb” (Wallace 1997:153).

  The second earthquake occurs during the seventh seal judgment (Rev. 8:1-6).  “Then the angel took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar, and threw it to the earth.  And there were noises, thunderings, lightnings, and an earthquake” (8:5).  Again, Chilton does not say if this is a literal earthquake or not (1987:231-235).

  The third earthquake occurs in conjunction with the martyrdom and resurrection of the two witnesses in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:13).  “In the same hour there was a great earthquake, and the tenth of the city fell.  In the earthquake seven thousand men were killed, and the rest were afraid and gave glory to the God of heaven.”  Chilton understands this to mean the defeat of the Lord’s enemies, but does not take this as a literal earthquake (1987:285).

  The fourth earthquake is mentioned at the end of chapter 11.  “Then the Temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His Temple.  And there was lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail” (11:19).

  The fifth and final earthquake in Revelation is after the gathering of the armies of the nations at Armageddon (Rev. 16:16).  This occurs during the seventh bowl judgment (Rev. 16:17-21).  “Then the seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the Temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, “It is done!”  And there were noises and thunderings and lightnings, and there was a great earthquake, such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the earth” (Rev. 16:17,18).  This earthquake, John writes, is like none that occurred since men were on the earth.  If the Preterist position is true, this earthquake was the most devastating earthquake to hit the earth and Jerusalem in particular (vs. 19, “the great city” = Jerusalem).  Yet the Preterist do not take this as a literal earthquake.  Chilton says, “Seven times in Revelation St. John mentions an earthquake (6:12; 8:5; 11:13 [twice]; 11:19; 16:18 [twice]), emphasizing its covenantal dimensions.  Christ came to bring the definitive earthquake, the great cosmic earthquake of the New Covenant” (1987:413).  Another Preterist comments, “These [the voices, thunder, lightnings, and earthquakes] are symbolic of the great energies of God’s throne being loosed in accomplishment of His purpose.  The great earthquake symbolizes the great change in the earth that took place when Israel as a nation under God was destroyed” (Ogden 1985:320,321).  The Preterist does not take this prophecy literally, but rather symbolically.  Why?  The reason is because they have no historical fulfillment from Josephus or any Roman historian to show for this prophecy.  Remember that Josephus was sitting in Jerusalem as an eyewitness to the siege of the city by Titus Caesar.  If any earthquake had occurred, for sure he would have mentioned it, especially one the size that John predicted.

  There were only three recorded earthquakes in Jerusalem during the First century AD.  One occurred in AD 30, in connection with the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 27:51-54; 28:2).  Another in AD 33, where there was slight damage to the Temple and finally another one in AD 48 that caused slight damage (Amiran, Arieh and Turcotte 1994: 265).  Since there was no earthquake, much less the most devastating one to hit the city, the Preterist have to make the earthquake symbolic!

  The Preterist dates the book of Revelation to before AD 70.  If they took this prophecy as a literal earthquake, Pliny the Elder would have put the lie to John’s statement “such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the earth.”  Pliny was a Roman of equestrian rank and a prolific researcher and writer.  His best known work is the 37 books of his Natural History.  Ironically, Pliny died while investigating the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in AD 79.  Writing in AD 77, Pliny described the earthquake that destroyed a portion of Asia Minor (now western Turkey) in AD 17 as “the greatest earthquake in human memory occurred when Tiberius Caesar was emperor, twelve Asiatic cities being overthrown in one night” (2:86:200; LCL 2:331, viii).

  Tacitus, in his Annals, described this earthquake as well.  “In the same year, twelve important cities of Asia collapsed in an earthquake, the time being night, so that the havoc was the less foreseen and the more devastating.  Even the usual resource in these catastrophes, a rush to open ground, was unavailing, as the fugitives were swallowed up in yawning chasms.  Accounts are given of huge mountains sinking, of former plains seen heaved aloft, of fires flashing out amid the ruin.  As the disaster fell heaviest on the Sardians, it brought them the largest measure of sympathy, the Caesar promising ten million sesterces, and remitting for five years their payments to the national and imperial exchequers” (2:47: LCL 2: 459).

  Pliny wrote this statement in AD 77, after John penned the Book of Revelation (according to the Preterist) and he said the AD 17 earthquake was the greatest in human memory.  If there had been an earthquake in Jerusalem right before AD 70, Pliny would have mentioned it as the greatest.  Pliny’s statement would fit better in the context of the book of Revelation having been written during the reign of Emperor Domitian.

  Earthquakes create a big problem for the preterist position because none occurred during the time of the Jewish revolt.  Thus, they have to make it symbolic, and not literal.

  Hailstones (Rev. 16:19-21)

  After the greatest earthquake ever recorded in the history of humanity (Rev. 16:16), the great city (Jerusalem) was divided into three parts.  Chilton, quoting Carrington, attributes this historically to the three rival Jewish leaders within Jerusalem during the siege by Titus (1987:416; cf. Wars 5:184-221; LCL 3:255-267).  The “great Babylon” (Jerusalem) was remembered before God and He poured out His wrath (16:19).  “Then every island fled away, and the mountains were not found” (16:20).  Rather than seeing this as some seismic activity resulting from the greatest earthquake to hit the face of the earth (cf. 16:16), Chilton sees this symbolically as the disappearance of false refuge for the wicked to hide (1987:417).

  Then, “great hail from heaven fell upon men, every hailstone about the weight of a talent.  And men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, since that plague was exceedingly great” (16:21).  Chilton correctly sees the connection between this judgment and the 7^th plague during the Exodus from Egypt (Ex. 9:18-26), and the hailstones that fell on the Canaanite at Beth Horon (Josh. 10:11).  In both cases these were literal hailstones and in modern day military parlance, they would be “air-to-surface” projectiles.

  Yet how does Chilton and other preterists, understand these hailstones?  “Hailstones” = stone missiles (ballista stones) shot from Roman catapults against the Jewish defenders of Jerusalem!  (Chilton 1987:417,418; Gentry 1998:245,246; Russell 1996:480,481; Ogden 1996:322,323).  Josephus describes the Roman “artillery engines” (or “stone projectors”) as “wonderfully constructed” and “the rocks which they hurled weighed a talent and had a range of two furlongs or more” (Wars 5:269,270; LCL 3:285).  Elsewhere Josephus mentions the 160 artillery engines that the three Roman legions employed against Jerusalem and ballista stones that weighted one talent (Wars 3:166-168; LCL 2:627).  In modern military jargon these would be “surface-to-surface” projectiles.

  The differences between hailstones and ballista stones are drastic.  One is made of ice and the other is made of stone, and in Jerusalem, limestone.  One is “air-to-surface” and divinely poured out, while the other, is “surface-to-surface” man made artillery shot by the Romans. The only similarities between the hailstones of Rev. 16 and the ballista stones of the Roman siege are that they both weighed one talent.  According to Chilton, a talent is equal to 100 pounds.  Others dispute this claim and say, “no precise weight is intended by the talent-sized hailstones poured out of the bowl of the seventh angel in Rev. 16:21, but they would have been formidable, weighing, even by the late Jewish definition of the talent, at least 20.4 kg” (Powell 1992:6:907b).  If one converted this weight, 20.4 kg would equal 49.982 pounds, half what Chilton states.

  A good example of ballista stones found in an archaeological context in Jerusalem can be seen in the area of the Citadel Museum at Jaffa Gate.  However, these stones are not from the First Jewish Revolt, but most likely from “the siege of Jerusalem by Antiochus VII Sidetes during the reign of John Hyrcanus (133-132 B.C.E.)” (Sivan and Solar 1994:174; a photograph of the ballista stones can be seen on page 173).

  In June of 2000, I gave a field trip to the Herodian, south of Bethlehem.  In Herod the Great’s bedroom there was a pile of ballista stones.  As I sat on top of them, I read Rev. 16:21 to the group of seminarians from The Master’s Seminary.  I pointed to the stones and said, tongue-in-cheek, “Folks, these are the hailstones mentioned in this passage!”  The students, all good Pre-Tribbers, looked at me in bewilderment until someone in the back asked, “Why haven’t them melted?!”  I responded, “Good question, next time you talk to a Preterist, ask him.”

  Rev. 16:17-21 illustrates a glaring problem in the preterist position.  When is the text to be taken literally and when is it to be taken symbolically?  The earthquake in verse 18 is symbolic and the “hailstones” (which, according to the Preterist, are really ballista stones) are taken “literally” and historically fulfilled in AD 70.  Consistent hermeneutics would prove helpful to the preterist in determining literal meaning from symbolic meanings.

  “The Man of Sin”

  James Russell, in his book The Parousia, gives 12 criteria for identifying the “Man of Sin” in II Thess. 2:1-12 (1996:181-182).  They are

  (1)  He will be an individual.

  (2)   He is a public person.

  (3)   He holds the highest rank in the State.

  (4)   He is a Gentile, not Jewish.

  (5)   He claims divinity.

  (6)   He pretends to exercise miraculous power.

  (7)   His character is wickedness.

  (8)   He is a lawless ruler.

  (9)   When the epistle was written, he had not come to power.

  (10)       He was “hindered” by someone known to the Thessalonians.

  (11)       He was doomed to destruction.

  (12)       His “manifestation” was prior to the Parousia.

  Russell goes on to identify the “Man of Sin” as Nero and his step-father, Claudius, as the “restrainer”.

  The biggest problem with this view is that the list of criteria leaves out a very important point.  Paul writes that the “Man of Sin” would sit “as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (II Thess. 2:4).  While Nero claimed divinity, he never sat in the Temple of God in Jerusalem and declared himself God.

  John Noe, following a booklet written by John Bray (1999), has recently suggested that the “Man of Sin” was John of Gischala, one of the commanders of the Zealot forces defending Jerusalem during the Jewish Revolt and the Temple Mount in particular.  The “restrainer” was the Jewish priesthood lead by Ananus, the high priest.  They were removed when John of Gischala had them all murdered (2000:206-212).

  The shortcoming of this view is that John of Gischala never declared himself to be God.  If he did, Josephus would have picked up on it and accused him of blasphemy.  There was no love loss between the two.  In fact, they hated one other.

  Both views have partial fulfillment, but not complete fulfillment.  Nero proclaimed himself to be divine, but never sat in the Temple of Jerusalem.  John of Gischala, on the other hand, was in the Temple in Jerusalem, but never declared himself to be God.  Thus both fail to fulfill the prophecy of Paul in II Thess. 2.  We are still waiting a future fulfillment in a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem.

  John Noe should be commended for showing the comparison between Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 2 (2000:296, footnote 2).  But it makes more sense to see the two as future rather that fulfilled in AD 70.

  Some Observations

  The biggest problem with the preterist position is the lack of consistent hermeneutics.  They grope to find historical fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.  When historical fulfillment fails the passage or event becomes “symbolic”.  It would be helpful if someone in the preterist camp would write a hermeneutics for his or her position.  What are the criteria for taking something literally?  When does something become symbolic?

  In some cases, they do not give a complete interpretation of a passage.  For example, in the second trumpet judgment, Chilton fails to identify or interpret all the things in the passage.  He makes no mention of the blood, the sea life that died or the 1/3 of the ships that were destroyed (8:8,9).

  They are also selective in their use of the material they use to prove their point.  For example, The Acts of John.

  Sometimes they use the historical data incorrectly as demonstrated by the coins with the seven stars.

  Finally, the “historical fulfillments” are not really fulfillments at all.

  Are the Fulfillments Historically Accurate?

  This chapter began by asking the question, “Are the fulfillments of the preterist view of Jerusalem historically accurate?”  The question must be answered three ways, (1) Biblically, (2) Historically, and (3) Prophetically.  Biblically, is Jerusalem to be identified with Babylon? Prophetically, were the prophecies fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem?  Historically, does the historical record fit the fulfillments?

  Biblically, the preterists have properly identified, in my opinion, “that great city” (Babylon) with Jerusalem.  Historically, their evidence for a fulfillment by an AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.  Prophetically, they have misidentified the timing of the event.  I believe “that great city” (Babylon) of Revelation 11-18 is a still future city of Jerusalem where the Antichrist will set up his throne in a rebuilt temple.  This city, trodden under foot by the Gentiles for the last 42 months of the Tribulation, will be destroyed at the end of the Great Tribulation period.

  Babylon is identified as “that great city” nine times in the Book of Revelation.  Seven of which are clearly connected with “Babylon”.  The first mention of the phrase “that great city” is in Rev. 11 where it is clearly identified as Jerusalem, “where our Lord was crucified” (Rev. 11:8).  It is also called “spiritually” (we would say metaphorically) “Sodom and Egypt”.  The city is not Sodom or Egypt, but is called that.  It is identified as the place where our Lord was crucified.  Where was that?  It was not outside of Rome, nor Babylon, nor in Egypt, but Jerusalem.  This first mention of “that great city” clearly identifies the rest of the usage of the phrase.  John uses “Sodom” and “Egypt” in a spiritual (metaphorical) sense for Jerusalem, why could he not use “Babylon” in the same way?

  I believe there are three reasons most Premillennialists have not taken a serious look at this view.  First, they have their preconceived ideas as to the identity of Babylon.  It is either Rome or Babylon in Iraq.  Needless to say, both of these ideas have serious Biblical flaws.  Second, they do not want to admit the Preterist might have correctly identified the city.  Third, they do not want to be accused of anti-Semitism.   Of course, nobody would accuse Isaiah of anti-Semitism after he called the leaders of Jerusalem, “rulers of Sodom” and the people of Jerusalem, “people of Gomorrah” (Isa. 1:10) and “a harlot” (1:21).  Jeremiah calls the prophets of Jerusalem “like Sodom” and the people of Jerusalem “like Gomorrah” (Jer. 23:14).  Ezekiel calls Judah “Sodom and her daughters” (16:46).  This is strong language but it is not anti-Semitic.

  For Further Study

  One area of comparison that I have not been able to pursue is the chronology of the Great Tribulation as set forth by the Preterist with the chronology of the First Jewish Revolt and the history of the Roman Empire during the 60’s of the First century.  Lord willing, and the saints aren’t Raptured first, I will write an article on “The Preterist View of the Great Tribulation and the First Jewish Revolt: Is It Chronologically Accurate?”

  One would have to make a time line of the Jewish Revolt (fortunately Josephus left us meticulous dates for most events) and the Roman Empire in the decade of the 60’s.  Then compare the timeline with the Preterist’s interpretation of the “time span” passages in the book of Revelation (i.e. “five months,” “three and a half years,” “forty-two months,” and “1,260 days”).

  Another area to pursue would be the “fulfillment” of the “Abomination of Desolation” in Matt. 24:15.  The Preterists have suggested several different interpretations to show how this was “fulfilled” during the First Jewish Revolt.

  Still further study should be on their identification of the “Man of Sin”.  Does John of Gischala fit the criteria of II Thess. 2?

  A Final Word

  The Apostle Paul wrote the second epistle to the church at Thessalonika to correct some prophetic errors.  He concludes his epistle by admonishing the believers, “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.  Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (3:14,15).

  We should be very careful not to stoop to the level of name-calling when we talk with those who hold to the Preterist position.  They are not our enemies, nor are they heretics, but they are our brothers.  They fully believe in the inspiration and inerrency of the Scriptures.  They love the Lord Jesus and His church.  We just do not agree with them on certain points of theology.  When we do disagree, we can kindly say, “I’m sorry brother, I love you but have to respectfully disagree with you.”  After all, it is NOT the end of the world!

  Bibliography

  Amiran, D., Arieh, E., and Turcotte, T.

  1994    Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macroseismic Observations since 100 B.C.E.  Israel Exploration Journal 44/3-4: 260-305.

  Balyeat, J.

  1991    Babylon, The Great City of Revelation.  Sevierville, TN: Onward.

  Bent, J.

  1888    What St. John Saw on Patmos.  The Nineteenth Century 24:813-821.

  Bray, J.

  1999    The Man of Sin of II Thessalonians 2.  Lakeland, FL: John L. Bray Ministry.

  Borowski, O.

  1987    Agriculture in Iron Age Israel.  Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

  Buckwalter, H. D., and Shoaff, M.

  1995    Guide to the Reference System for the Works of Flavius Josephus.  Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

  Burnett, A., Amandry, M., and Ripolles, P.

  1992    Roman Provincial Coinage.  Vol. 1.  London: British Museum.  Paris: Bibliotheque nationale de France.

  Chilton, D.

  1987a The Days of Vengeance.  Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion.

  1987b Paradise Restored.  Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion.

  1987c The Great Tribulation.  Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion.

  Davies, K.

  2000    Babylon The Harlot City.  Bradford, PA: International Preterist Association.

  DeMar, G.

  2001   End Time Fiction.  Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

  Ford, J. M.

  1975    Revelation.  The Anchor Bible.  Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

  Franz, G.

  1999    The King and I: The Apostle John and Emperor Domitian.  Bible and Spade 12/2: 45-51.

  2000    The King and I: Opening the Third Seal.  Bible and Spade 13/1: 9-11.

  Gentry, K.

  1994a Before Dispensationalism Fell.  A Response to Dr. Robert L. Thomas (Part 1).  Dispensationalism in Transition 8/8:1,2.

  1994b Reconstructionism v. Dispensationalism.  A Response to Dr. Robert L. Thomas (Part 2).  Dispensationalism in Transition 8/9: 1,2.

  1998    Before Jerusalem Fell.  Dating the Book of Revelation.  Atlanta, GA: American Vision’s.

  Gichon, M.

  1981    Cestius Gallus’s Campaign in Judaea.  Palestine Exploration Quarterly.  113: 39-62.

  Hareuveni, N.

  1980    Nature in Our Biblical Heritage.  Translated by Helen Frenkley.  Kiryat Ono, Israel: Neot Kedumim.

  1987    The Emblem of the State of Israel.  Translated by Helen Frenkley.  Kiryat Ono, Israel: Neot Kedumim.

  Holford, G.

  2001    The Destruction of Jerusalem.  An Absolute and Irresistible Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity.  Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media.

  Jacobson, D.

  1999    Palestine and Israel.  Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.  313: 65-74.

  Janzen, E.

  1994    The Jesus of the Apocalypse Wears the Emperor’s Cloth.  Pp. 637-657 in SBL 1994 Seminar Papers.  Atlanta, GA: Scholars.

  Jones, J.

  1990    A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins.  London: Seaby.

  Josephus

  1976    Josephus, The Life, Against Apion.  Vol. 1.  Trans. H. Thackeray.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library.

  1976   Josephus, The Jewish Wars.  Books I-III.  Vol. 2.  Trans. H.

  Thackeray.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard university.  Loeb Classical

  Library.

  1979    Josephus, The Jewish Wars.  Books IV-VII.  Vol. 3.  Trans. H. Thackeray.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard university.  Loeb Classical Library.

  Mattingly, H., and Sydenham, E.

  1926    The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. 2.  London: Spink and Son.

  Noe, J.

  2000    Beyond the End Times.  Bradford, PA: Preterist Resources.

  2001    Shattering the Left Behind Delusion.  Bradford, PA: Internationalist Preterist Association.

  Ogden, A.

  1985    The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets.  A Commentary on Revelation.  Somerset, KY: Ogden Publications.  Third printing, 1996.

  Paher, S.

  1996    Matthew 24.  First Century Fulfillment or End-Time Expectations? Las Vegas, NV: Nevada.

  Pliny

  1979    Pliny, Natural History.  Books I-II.  Vol. 1.  Trans. H. Rackham.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library.

  1989   Pliny, Natural History.  Books III-VII.  Vol. 2.  Trans. H. Rackham.

  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library.

  Powell, M.

  1992   Weights and Measures.  Pp. 897-908 in The Anchor Bible

  Dictionary.  Vol. 6.  New York: Doubleday.

  Preston, D.

  1999    Who Is This Babylon? Self published.

  Russell, J.

  1996    The Parousia, A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming.  Bradford, PA: Kingdom Publications.

  Siven, R., and Solar, G.

  1994    Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel, 1980-1988.  Pp. 168-176 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed.  Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

  Sproul, R. C.

  1998   The Last Days According to Jesus.  Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

  Stevens, E.

  1997    What Happened in A.D. 70? Bradford, PA: Kingdom Publication.

  Sutherland, C.

  1984    The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. 1.  London: Spink and Son.

  Tacitus

  1992   Tacitus, Histories IV-V, Annals I-III.  Vol. 3.  Trans. C. Moore and J.

  Jackson.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical

  Library.

  Thomas, R.

  1994    Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation.  The Master’s Seminary Journal 5/2: 185-202.

  Van der Waal, C.

  1991    Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy.  Neerlandia, Alberta: Inheritance.

  Wallace, F.

  1997   The Book of Revelation.  Fort Smith, AR: Foy E. Wallace Jr.

  Publications.

  Wilson, M.

  2000    Zeugma: Armageddon on the Euphrates?  Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 45: 23-35.

  A variation of this paper was presented at the 1999 Pre-Trib Study Group on Monday, December 13, 1999.

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »