DOCSLIB.ORG

Zadok and Nehushtan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Zadok and Nehushtan ZADOK AND NEHUSHTAN H. H. ROWLEY I HE figure of Zadok has always commanded the interest of T Old Testament students, and the problem of his anteced- ents has found no certain solution. He appears suddenly beside Abiathar in the Jerusalem priesthood in the time of David, but the Old Testament gives us no reliable information as to whence he came. He is provided, indeed, with two different genealogies, but of these one is almost certainly due to textual corruption, and the other to the pious fabrication of a later age. For whereas 2 Sam 8 17 declares him to be the son of Ahitub, and so apparently of the family of Eli,1 1 Chron 24 3 represents him as belonging to the house of Eleazar, which is contrasted with the house of ־Ithamar, to which Eli belonged, while 1 Chron 5 30-34, 6 35r38 provides him with a full genealogy back to (־־E. V. 6 450-53 ,8) Aaron. That he was not the son of Ahitub, Eli’s grandson (1 Sam 14 3) is certain,2 for 1 Sam 2 27-36 was clearly written to explain the 1 Kennett {Old Testament Essays, 1928, 77) thinks the text of 1 Sam 143 unreliable, and doubts the soundness of the connexion of Ahitub with the house of Eli. 2 Graf, indeed, held that Zadok's father was the same person as Ahimelech's father, and hence that Zadok belonged to the house of Eli. Cf. De templo Silonensi commentario ad illustrandum locum lud. xviii. 30 sq. scripta (Mem- oriam anniversariam dedicatae ante hos CCCXII annos Scholae Regiae Afranae d. v. lui. MDCCCLV indicit Fridericus Franke) p. 13: Omnes qui in Sauli et Davidis historia nominantur sacerdotes ex una eademque sacer- dotum gente fuisse videntur ex Ahitubi filiis, qui Nobae sedem et sacrarium In making ״.habuerunt et Davidis partes secuti Sauli iussu plerique occisi sunt Zadok the uncle of Abiathar, this view renders 1 Sam 2 27-36 unintelligible. 113 114 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE supersession of Eli's house by that of Zadok in the time of Solomon (1 Kings 2 26 f.). But neither was Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and the text of 2 Sam 8 17 is manifestly out of order.3 The restoration of A1biathar the son of Ahimelech 1was long since proposed,4 and is found, indeed, in the Syriac version, but the corruption would seem to be deeper than that, and by the comparison with 1 Sam 22 20 it becomes almost certain that instead of 'Zadok the son of Ahi tub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar,’ we should read 4Zadok, and Abiathar the son of It thus appears that the Ahitub 5״. Ahimelech the son of Ahitub of this verse, accidentally transferred to Zadok, is indeed Eli's - grandson, but that in the original text Zadok was entirely with out genealogy. He is therefore not seldom referred to as a parvenu.6 That he should be given a full genealogy by the Chronicler is not surprising. For owing to the respective parts played by Abiathar and Zadok in the intrigue that preceded the accession of Solomon, the one was dismissed from Jerusalem, and the other left without rival in the Jerusalem priesthood (1 Kings - f.), with the result that his successors continued to monop 26 2 olize the priestly offices of Jerusalem down to the Exile, and is to be observed that whereas 2 Sam 817 says that Zadok and Ahimelech גIt were the priests, 20 25 gives the names of Zadok and Abiathar, and we know that Abiathar, who was David’s priest during his outlawry, was still priest at .the beginning of Solomon’s reign So Tirinus: ‘Videtur potius dicendum Abiathar filius Achimelech’ {Biblia 4 maxima versionum, cum annotationibus , IV , 1660, 460(. T*h is reading is commonly attributed to Wellhausen, who proposed Abiathar the son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, and Zadok’ (Der Text der * Bücher Samuelis, 1871, 177). But in the order given above the proposal is older than Wellhausen, being found in Maurer (Commentarius grammaticus criticus in Vetus Testamentum, I, 1835, 184) and Hitzig (apud Thenius,Die Bûcher Samuels, 1842, 166). In one or other of these forms it is followed by most modern writers, though H. P. Smith (Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, 1899, 309), DriverNotes ( on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, 2nd ed., 1913, 283) and Rehm Textkritische( Untersuchungen zu den Parallelstellen der Samuel-Königsbücher und der Chronik , 1937, 126( content themselves with the change to ‘Abiathar the son of Ahimelech,’ and re’. tain ‘Zadok the son of Ahitub Cf. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel , E. T. by Black arid 6 Menzies, 1885, 143, and Kennett,Old Testament Essaysf 1928, 78. ROWLEY: ZADOK AND NEHUSHTAN l i s even the reform of Josiah failed to interfere with their privileges Kings 23 9), despite the provisions of Deuteronomy 2( )186 -8(. Ezekiel rationalized this position of privilege, and laid it down - that in the future community priestly functions should be re served for the family of Zadok (Ezk 44 15 ), while the country - priests who had failed to secure what the Deuteronomic reform e rs had proposed for them should be reduced to a sub-priestly status (Ezk 4410 ff.).7 But by the time of the Chronicler the Priestly Code was already established, and while it accepted Ezekiel’s principle of two grades of Temple attendants, it adopted a wider basis than Ezekiel’s for the limits of the priesthood, which - it assigned to the descendants of Aaron.8 It was therefore neces sary to legitimate the family of Zadok within the family of Aaron,9 and the creation of the genealogy set out in Chronicles i s the natural result. It would seem that the corruption of 2 Sam had already taken place,10 so that Ahitub had to figure as 17 8 As - Gray observes: *Ezekiel. leaves us . in no doubt that the distinc ך tion between the sons of Zadok and other priests which he would introduce -in the future had not been a feature of life before the fall of Jerusalem* (Sacri fice in the Old Testament ,1 925,6 4(. Ke-nnett accounted for this by the theory that after the Jerusalem prie 8st hood (Zadokite) had been carried into exile, the Bethel priesthood, which traced its descent from Aaron (cf. Aaron’s Golden Calf, and the Calf-worship of Bethel), migrated to Jerusalem, and became so strongly entrenched during the Exile that when the Zadokites returned, the most they could do was to o d ,JTS״,secure a place beside them. Cf. ‘The Origin of the Aaronite Priestho VI 1)904-5(, 161-86. T-he Priestly Code not merely carried back the post-Deuteronomic distin c 9 tion between Aaronites and ordinary Levites to the Mosaic age; it assigned a third reason for the predominance of the Zadokites. For whereas 1 Sam ascribed it to the misconduct of the family of Eli, and Ezk 44 10 ff. to 27-36 2 the misdeeds of the country priests, Num 25 10 ff. ascribed it to the virtue of Phinehas, Aaron’s grandson. It is of interest to note, too, that whereas Sam- 2 27-36 states that Yahweh repented of His promise to confer an ever 1 las,)ting priesthood on the family of Eli’s father (i. e. on the house of Ithamar and would raise up a faithful priest (i. e. Zadok), Num 25 12 f. declares that already in the Mosaic age Yahweh had promised the abiding priesthood, not to. the family of Ithamar, but to the family of Eleazar Cf. 1 Chron 24 6, where the other corruption of this verse, ‘Ahimele c10h -the son of Abiathar’ is also reproduced. In 1 Chron 18 16 by a further cor ruption we have ‘Abimelech the son of Abiathar.’ In both of these passages the Syriac has 1Ahimelech the son of Abiathar*; ct. 2 Sam 8 17, supra. 116 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE the father of Zadok, but was now converted into a descendant of Eleazar. Kittel accepts the view that Zadok was a Levite,11 and thinks it probable that he was a descendant of Aaron, but though he promises proof of this, all he is able to offer is the consideration that he can hardly have been a non-Levite, for Solomon would have avoided appointing in Abiathar’s place one who had no claim whatever to priestly descent.12 The argument is a non- sequitur, for it tacitly assumes that the only title to the priest- hood in the age of David was Levitical descent.13 Hölscher rejects the view that Zadok was a Levite, and believes that the Zadokites were first recognized as Levi tes by Deut 18 7.14 I am not persuaded of this, however. When the tribe of Levi lost its secular status,15 many of its wandering members appear to have ־History of the Hebrews, E. T. by Taylor, I, 1908, 124. So, too, von Baud 11 issin, Geschichte des alttestamenüichen Priesterthums, 1889, 198 f. ” Op. cit.f II, 1909, 182 f. Cf. Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II 7th ed., 1925, 196. ** In Theologische Studien aus Württemberg , III (1882), 299 ff., Kittel had earlier argued for the view that Zadok was a Levite, and on p. 302 advanced the consideration that were he not a Levite, David and Solomon would have been guilty of the sin which 1 Kings 12 31 regards as one of the worst of Jero- boam’s sins — viz.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature Author(S): John Day Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol
    Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature Author(s): John Day Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 105, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 385-408 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3260509 . Accessed: 11/05/2013 22:44 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 143.207.2.50 on Sat, 11 May 2013 22:44:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions JBL 105/3 (1986) 385-408 ASHERAH IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND NORTHWEST SEMITIC LITERATURE* JOHN DAY Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford University, England, OX2 6QA The late lamented Mitchell Dahood was noted for the use he made of the Ugaritic and other Northwest Semitic texts in the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Although many of his views are open to question, it is indisputable that the Ugaritic and other Northwest Semitic texts have revolutionized our understanding of the Bible. One matter in which this is certainly the case is the subject of this paper, Asherah.' Until the discovery of the Ugaritic texts in 1929 and subsequent years it was common for scholars to deny the very existence of the goddess Asherah, whether in or outside the Bible, and many of those who did accept her existence wrongly equated her with Astarte.
    [Show full text]
  • 15. Bible Marking
    LESSON FIFTEEN Hezekiah: The Challenge from Assyria Quote: “He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. For he clave to the LORD, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses.” 2 Kings 18:5, 6 Bible Marking Hezekiah - 2 Kings 18 2 Kings 18:1 - “Hezekiah” - Means “strengthened of Yahweh”. It was only through Yahweh’s strength that the reformation was accomplished, that Hezekiah was healed, and that Assyria was defeated. So great was Hezekiah, that we are given 3 records of his life (Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah). A Reformation on Divine Principles Mark above & “Ahaz” - Means “possessor”, ie. a selfish man, below 2 Kg 18 who was Judah’s worst king Ahaz had given himself over to idolatry, following the examples of those who had left the truth (2 Chron 28:1-2), and 2 Kings 18:2 - “Abi” - The margin has - ‘Abijah, of the world in general (2 Kg 16:3, 10-11). He therefore made 2 Chron 29:1’. “Abijah” means “Yah is Father”. Judah “naked” in the sight of Yahweh, and “transgressed sore She appears to be the inspiration for Hezekiah to against Yahweh” (2 Chron 28:19). Now Hezekiah brought devote his life to the service of Yahweh. See about a reformation upon Divine principles. He turned the Prov 22:6. people back to Yahweh and His Word and to the Pioneers of “Zachariah” - Means “Yahweh hath remembered” the truth (David, Asaph and Gad and Nathan etc).
    [Show full text]
  • Josephus As Political Philosopher: His Concept of Kingship
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 Josephus As Political Philosopher: His Concept Of Kingship Jacob Douglas Feeley University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, and the Jewish Studies Commons Recommended Citation Feeley, Jacob Douglas, "Josephus As Political Philosopher: His Concept Of Kingship" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2276. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2276 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2276 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Josephus As Political Philosopher: His Concept Of Kingship Abstract Scholars who have discussed Josephus’ political philosophy have largely focused on his concepts of aristokratia or theokratia. In general, they have ignored his concept of kingship. Those that have commented on it tend to dismiss Josephus as anti-monarchical and ascribe this to the biblical anti- monarchical tradition. To date, Josephus’ concept of kingship has not been treated as a significant component of his political philosophy. Through a close reading of Josephus’ longest text, the Jewish Antiquities, a historical work that provides extensive accounts of kings and kingship, I show that Josephus had a fully developed theory of monarchical government that drew on biblical and Greco- Roman models of kingship. Josephus held that ideal kingship was the responsible use of the personal power of one individual to advance the interests of the governed and maintain his and his subjects’ loyalty to Yahweh. The king relied primarily on a standard array of classical virtues to preserve social order in the kingdom, protect it from external threats, maintain his subjects’ quality of life, and provide them with a model for proper moral conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • Unpacking the Book #12The Tabernacle
    The W.E.L.L. Stoneybrooke Christian Schools Sherry L. Worel www.sherryworel.com 2012.UTB.12 Unpacking the Book #12The Tabernacle I. An overview There are nearly 470 verses in our bible used to describe the form and furnishings of the Tabernacle and Temple. The bible gives a very specific plan for the building of the tabernacle. However, the temple is not outlined in detail. I Chron. 28:11‐19 does seem to indicate that the Lord gave David some sort of plan or model. The tabernacle was an ornate tent shrine that served the people of Israel for approximately 200 years until it was replaced by Solomon’s temple. This temple served as God’s home for approximately 400 years until the Babylonians destroyed it in 586 BC. When the Israelites returned from Babylon, Zerubbabel over saw the rebuilding of a much inferior temple in 520 BC. This building was damaged and repaired many times until Herod built his “renovation” in 19 BC. The Roman General, Titus destroyed this temple in 70AD. II. The Tabernacle (The Tent of Meeting or Place of Dwelling) A. Consider the New Testament perspective: Hebrews 9:9‐11, 10:1, Col. 2:17 and Revelation 15:5, 21:3 B. Moses was given a model of this meeting house by God Himself (Ex. 25:40) C. The craftsmen Bezalel and Oholiab built this ornate tent. See Ex. 25‐27, 35‐40 for all the details. 1. There was a linen fence that formed an outer courtyard. In that courtyard were two furnishings: a.
    [Show full text]
  • 2 the Assyrian Empire, the Conquest of Israel, and the Colonization of Judah 37 I
    ISRAEL AND EMPIRE ii ISRAEL AND EMPIRE A Postcolonial History of Israel and Early Judaism Leo G. Perdue and Warren Carter Edited by Coleman A. Baker LONDON • NEW DELHI • NEW YORK • SYDNEY 1 Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10018 UK USA www.bloomsbury.com Bloomsbury, T&T Clark and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2015 © Leo G. Perdue, Warren Carter and Coleman A. Baker, 2015 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Leo G. Perdue, Warren Carter and Coleman A. Baker have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the authors. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-0-56705-409-8 PB: 978-0-56724-328-7 ePDF: 978-0-56728-051-0 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) 1 Contents Abbreviations vii Preface ix Introduction: Empires, Colonies, and Postcolonial Interpretation 1 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Serpent Symbols and Salvation in the Ancient Near East and the Book of Mormon
    Journal of Book of Mormon Studies Volume 10 Number 2 Article 8 7-31-2001 Serpent Symbols and Salvation in the Ancient Near East and the Book of Mormon Andrew C. Skinner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Skinner, Andrew C. (2001) "Serpent Symbols and Salvation in the Ancient Near East and the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Vol. 10 : No. 2 , Article 8. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol10/iss2/8 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Title Serpent Symbols and Salvation in the Ancient Near East and the Book of Mormon Author(s) Andrew C. Skinner Reference Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10/2 (2001): 42–55, 70–71. ISSN 1065-9366 (print), 2168-3158 (online) Abstract The serpent is often used to represent one of two things: Christ or Satan. This article synthesizes evi- dence from Egypt, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Greece, and Jerusalem to explain the reason for this duality. Many scholars suggest that the symbol of the serpent was used anciently to represent Jesus Christ but that Satan distorted the symbol, thereby creating this para- dox. The dual nature of the serpent is incorporated into the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon. erpent ymbols & SSalvation in the ancient near east and the book of mormon andrew c.
    [Show full text]
  • 2210 Bc 2200 Bc 2190 Bc 2180 Bc 2170 Bc 2160 Bc 2150 Bc 2140 Bc 2130 Bc 2120 Bc 2110 Bc 2100 Bc 2090 Bc
    2210 BC 2200 BC 2190 BC 2180 BC 2170 BC 2160 BC 2150 BC 2140 BC 2130 BC 2120 BC 2110 BC 2100 BC 2090 BC Fertile Crescent Igigi (2) Ur-Nammu Shulgi 2192-2190BC Dudu (20) Shar-kali-sharri Shu-Turul (14) 3rd Kingdom of 2112-2095BC (17) 2094-2047BC (47) 2189-2169BC 2217-2193BC (24) 2168-2154BC Ur 2112-2004BC Kingdom Of Akkad 2234-2154BC ( ) (2) Nanijum, Imi, Elulu Imta (3) 2117-2115BC 2190-2189BC (1) Ibranum (1) 2180-2177BC Inimabakesh (5) Ibate (3) Kurum (1) 2127-2124BC 2113-2112BC Inkishu (6) Shulme (6) 2153-2148BC Iarlagab (15) 2121-2120BC Puzur-Sin (7) Iarlaganda ( )(7) Kingdom Of Gutium 2177-2171BC 2165-2159BC 2142-2127BC 2110-2103BC 2103-2096BC (7) 2096-2089BC 2180-2089BC Nikillagah (6) Elulumesh (5) Igeshaush (6) 2171-2165BC 2159-2153BC 2148-2142BC Iarlagash (3) Irarum (2) Hablum (2) 2124-2121BC 2115-2113BC 2112-2110BC ( ) (3) Cainan 2610-2150BC (460 years) 2120-2117BC Shelah 2480-2047BC (403 years) Eber 2450-2020BC (430 years) Peleg 2416-2177BC (209 years) Reu 2386-2147BC (207 years) Serug 2354-2124BC (200 years) Nahor 2324-2176BC (199 years) Terah 2295-2090BC (205 years) Abraham 2165-1990BC (175) Genesis (Moses) 1)Neferkare, 2)Neferkare Neby, Neferkamin Anu (2) 3)Djedkare Shemay, 4)Neferkare 2169-2167BC 1)Meryhathor, 2)Neferkare, 3)Wahkare Achthoes III, 4)Marykare, 5)............. (All Dates Unknown) Khendu, 5)Meryenhor, 6)Neferkamin, Kakare Ibi (4) 7)Nykare, 8)Neferkare Tereru, 2167-2163 9)Neferkahor Neferkare (2) 10TH Dynasty (90) 2130-2040BC Merenre Antyemsaf II (All Dates Unknown) 2163-2161BC 1)Meryibre Achthoes I, 2)............., 3)Neferkare, 2184-2183BC (1) 4)Meryibre Achthoes II, 5)Setut, 6)............., Menkare Nitocris Neferkauhor (1) Wadjkare Pepysonbe 7)Mery-........, 8)Shed-........, 9)............., 2183-2181BC (2) 2161-2160BC Inyotef II (-1) 2173-2169BC (4) 10)............., 11)............., 12)User......
    [Show full text]
  • Through the Bible Study 2 Chronicles 18-22
    THROUGH THE BIBLE STUDY 2 CHRONICLES 18-22 The children’s series VeggieTales has sold over 52 million DVD and VHS copies. Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber teach biblical values to kids. The series became so popular it was sold to NBC and added to its Saturday morning kids programming. But it didn’t take long for NBC editors to go to work. Non-historical references to God and the Bible were sliced - even Bob and Larry’s trademark ending - “Remember kids, God made you special, and loves you very much…” - is gone. The vitamins were cooked out of VeggieTales. The series’ creator, Phil Vischer confessed, had he known how much the shows would change he wouldn’t have signed on to the network deal. Vischer sums it up this way, “VeggieTales is religious – NBC is not.” It’s a classic case of what the Bible calls being “unequally yoked.” 2 Corinthians 6:14 says it best, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” This is a farming analogy… Different species of animals, with diverse natures, harnessed together will struggle to cooperate. They’ll pull in opposite directions. And when a Christian becomes entangled with a non- Christian in a legally binding relationship some kind of compromise is the inevitable outcome. !1 It happens when a believer and an unbeliever go into business. It happens when a believer and an unbeliever get married. It happens when NBC and VeggieTales partner together. And it happened when Jehoshaphat joined forces with Israel. 2 Chronicles 18, “Jehoshaphat had riches and honor in abundance; and by marriage he allied himself with Ahab.” Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, married the daughter of his northern rival, King Ahab.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bronze Snake
    Lesson 12 The Bronze Snake Numbers 20:1-21:9 Numbers 20 And the people of Israel, the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month, and the people stayed in Kadesh. And Miriam died there and was buried there. 2 Now there was no water for the congregation. And they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron. 3 And the people quarreled with Moses and said, “Would that we had perished when our brothers perished before the LORD! 4 Why have you brought the assembly of the LORD into this wilderness, that we should die here, both we and our cattle? 5 And why have you made us come up out of Egypt to bring us to this evil place? It is no place for grain or figs or vines or pomegranates, and there is no water to drink.” 6 Then Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the entrance of the tent of meeting and fell on their faces. And the glory of the LORD appeared to them, 7 and the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 8 “Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water. So you shall bring water out of the rock for them and give drink to the congregation and their cattle.” 9 And Moses took the staff from before the LORD, as he commanded him. 10 Then Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, “Hear now, you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” 11 And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, and water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their livestock.
    [Show full text]
  • JOASH SAVED / JEHOIADA, FAITHFUL PRIEST Story Notes File No
    2 KINGS 11:1–21 2 Kings 8:16–18, 25, 26; 2 Chronicles 22: 10 — 23:21 JOASH SAVED / JEHOIADA, FAITHFUL PRIEST Story Notes File no. 82 Athaliah became queen mother in the South. Her parents were King Ahab and Jezebel of the northern tribes but she alone was left of all her royal family. Jehu had killed her son, the king. Here in the South, she sought to grasp a throne for herself and Ahab’s family by killing all her remaining sons who could inherit the throne in David’s name. That is, she thought she had killed them all. God had promised to bless the world through David’s line. One of her stepdaughters had married the priest Jehoiada, and they rescued one son. God’s promise was kept (2 Sam. 7:11; Ps. 89:36) and Solomon’s prayer was heard (1 Kings 8:25). The lamp of David was not extinguished (1 Kings 11:36; Ps. 132:17). When the son was old enough to be presented to the nation, Jehoiada staged a coup de etat. Surprise was gained by off duty soldiers joining those on duty, and coming to the temple unarmed as if to worship, and then being armed from an arsenal within the temple. Joash was crowned and given a copy of the covenant and proclaimed king to the acclaim of the nation. It appears that army commanders and priesthood, together with the people welcomed the restoration of covenant loyalty to Yahweh. Athaliah and the house of Ahab were finished and Baalism had suffered a crushing blow.
    [Show full text]
  • High Priests Garments and History
    THE HIGH PRIEST - GARMENTS AND HISTORY Historical Significance and Symbolism Joseph Martinez Manassas Chapter #81, RAM THE HIGH PRIEST • Brief Introduction • Appearance in the VSL • Garments – Biblical Explanations – Use in Royal Arch • Observations Joseph Martinez Manassas Chapter #81, RAM TRIVIA • Master of the Chapter – in United States – Excellent High Priest, King, and Scribe • In United Kingdom – First, Second, Third Principal • In Ireland – Excellent King, High Priest and Chief Scribe Joseph Martinez Manassas Chapter #81, RAM TRIVIA • In United Kingdom – First, Second, Third Principal – Most Excellent Zerubbabel Joseph Martinez Manassas Chapter #81, RAM THE HIGH PRIEST • Master of a Chapter • Member of the Grand Council • Past High Priest – Wears a distinctive Symbol Joseph Martinez Manassas Chapter #81, RAM ROYAL ARCH - HIGH PRIEST SYMBOL • Is the Breastplate of the High Priest of Israel • Described in Exodus 28 • Created in Exodus 39 • Worn by Aaron in Leviticus 8 Joseph Martinez Manassas Chapter #81, RAM THE HIGH PRIEST OF ISRAEL • Aaron was the first – Exodus 28 • Was to be successive through Aaron’s line – Aaron Eleazar Phinehas Abishua Bukki Uzzi – Ithamar Eli Ahitub Ahijah Ahimelech Abiathar • Solomon – Abiathar Zadok (High Priest at completion of the First Temple) Joseph Martinez Manassas Chapter #81, RAM THE FIRST TEMPLE • David – Abiathar and Zadok were High Priests in tandem • Solomon – When Adonijah tries to claim power and kingship • Abiathar sides with Adonijah’s camp – David near death proclaims Solomon
    [Show full text]
  • Josephus Writings Outline
    THE WARS OF THE JEWS OR THE HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM – BOOK I CONTAINING FROM THE TAKING OF JERUSALEM BY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES TO THE DEATH OF HEROD THE GREAT. (THE INTERVAL OF 177 YEARS) CHAPTER 1: HOW THE CITY JERUSALEM WAS TAKEN, AND THE TEMPLE PILLAGED [BY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES]; AS ALSO CONCERNING THE ACTIONS OF THE MACCABEES, MATTHIAS AND JUDAS; AND CONCERNING THE DEATH OF JUDAS. CHAPTER 2: CONCERNING THE SUCCESSORS OF JUDAS; WHO WERE JONATHAN AND SIMON, AND JOHN HYRCANUS? CHAPTER 3: HOW ARISTOBULUS WAS THE FIRST THAT PUT A DIADEM ABOUT HIS HEAD; AND AFTER HE HAD PUT HIS MOTHER AND BROTHER TO DEATH, DIED HIMSELF, WHEN HE HAD REIGNED NO MORE THAN A YEAR. CHAPTER 4: WHAT ACTIONS WERE DONE BY ALEXANDER JANNEUS, WHO REIGNED TWENTY- SEVEN YEARS. CHAPTER 5: ALEXANDRA REIGNS NINE YEARS, DURING WHICH TIME THE PHARISEES WERE THE REAL RULERS OF THE NATION. CHAPTER 6: WHEN HYRCANUS WHO WAS ALEXANDER'S HEIR, RECEDED FROM HIS CLAIM TO THE CROWN ARISTOBULUS IS MADE KING; AND AFTERWARD THE SAME HYRCANUS BY THE MEANS OF ANTIPATER; IS BROUGHT BACK BY ABETAS. AT LAST POMPEY IS MADE THE ARBITRATOR OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE BROTHERS. CHAPTER 7: HOW POMPEY HAD THE CITY OF JERUSALEM DELIVERED UP TO HIM BUT TOOK THE TEMPLE BY FORCE. HOW HE WENT INTO THE HOLY OF HOLIES; AS ALSO WHAT WERE HIS OTHER EXPLOITS IN JUDEA. CHAPTER 8: ALEXANDER, THE SON OF ARISTOBULUS, WHO RAN AWAY FROM POMPEY, MAKES AN EXPEDITION AGAINST HYRCANUS; BUT BEING OVERCOME BY GABINIUS HE DELIVERS UP THE FORTRESSES TO HIM.
    [Show full text]