Podcasts about Herodian

When I sat down with Dr. Ory Amitay, his passion for myth, history, and ancient cultures was infectious. Our conversation about his new book, Alexander the Great in Jerusalem: Myth and History, Oxford University Press, 2025, quickly revealed that for Ory, the real intrigue isn't whether Alexander literally visited Jerusalem, but how and why this story was created and retold for centuries. Ory traced his fascination with this intersection of myth and reality back to his Israeli upbringing and Berkeley days, where he mastered ancient languages and ventured beyond traditional Jewish sources. He described how, over time, different versions of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem reflected shifting political climates—from the Seleucid takeover to Roman conquest. Myths, he explained, were tools to help communities navigate upheaval, envisioning themselves in relation to powerful foreign rulers.  Pressed for the historical “truth,” Ory smiled and emphasized that the stories' meaning—how they address the anxieties and hopes of their tellers—outweighs whether Alexander's visit “really” happened. As he pursues new projects, translating ancient versions of these tales and writing a book on Western civilization, I left inspired by his view that exploring old myths is also about understanding how we shape, and are shaped by, our stories about ourselves. Alexander the Great in Jerusalem: Myth and History discusses four different stories told in antiquity about the meeting between Alexander the Great and the Judeans of Jerusalem. In history, this meeting, if it happened, passed without noticeable events. Into the historical void stepped various Judean storytellers, who wrote not what was, but what could (or even should) have been.The tradition as a whole deals with an issue that resurfaced time and again in ancient Judean history: conquest and regime installment by new foreign rulers. It does so by using Alexander as a cipher for a current Hellenistic and Roman foreign rule. The earliest version can be traced to the context of the Seleukid monarch Antiochos III "the Great", and postulates a Judean text from that time that has been hitherto unknown, and which survived in a Byzantine recension (epsilon) of the Alexander Romance. The second and third chapters turn to rabbinic sources, and deal with the Judean approaches and attitudes towards Roman occupation and rule, first at the advent of Pompey and then at the institution of Provincia ludaea at the expense of the Herodian dynasty. The final story is the most famous, previously considered the earliest, rather than the latest; that of Josephus.Alexander the Great in Jerusalem demonstrates how the historical tradition consistently maintained the moral and sacral superiority of the Jerusalem temple and of Judaism, making Alexander either embrace monotheism or prostrate himself before the Judean high priest. This not only bolstered Judean self-confidence under conditions of military and political inferiority, but also brought the changing foreign rulers into the fold of Judean sacred history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

When I sat down with Dr. Ory Amitay, his passion for myth, history, and ancient cultures was infectious. Our conversation about his new book, Alexander the Great in Jerusalem: Myth and History, Oxford University Press, 2025, quickly revealed that for Ory, the real intrigue isn't whether Alexander literally visited Jerusalem, but how and why this story was created and retold for centuries. Ory traced his fascination with this intersection of myth and reality back to his Israeli upbringing and Berkeley days, where he mastered ancient languages and ventured beyond traditional Jewish sources. He described how, over time, different versions of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem reflected shifting political climates—from the Seleucid takeover to Roman conquest. Myths, he explained, were tools to help communities navigate upheaval, envisioning themselves in relation to powerful foreign rulers.  Pressed for the historical “truth,” Ory smiled and emphasized that the stories' meaning—how they address the anxieties and hopes of their tellers—outweighs whether Alexander's visit “really” happened. As he pursues new projects, translating ancient versions of these tales and writing a book on Western civilization, I left inspired by his view that exploring old myths is also about understanding how we shape, and are shaped by, our stories about ourselves. Alexander the Great in Jerusalem: Myth and History discusses four different stories told in antiquity about the meeting between Alexander the Great and the Judeans of Jerusalem. In history, this meeting, if it happened, passed without noticeable events. Into the historical void stepped various Judean storytellers, who wrote not what was, but what could (or even should) have been.The tradition as a whole deals with an issue that resurfaced time and again in ancient Judean history: conquest and regime installment by new foreign rulers. It does so by using Alexander as a cipher for a current Hellenistic and Roman foreign rule. The earliest version can be traced to the context of the Seleukid monarch Antiochos III "the Great", and postulates a Judean text from that time that has been hitherto unknown, and which survived in a Byzantine recension (epsilon) of the Alexander Romance. The second and third chapters turn to rabbinic sources, and deal with the Judean approaches and attitudes towards Roman occupation and rule, first at the advent of Pompey and then at the institution of Provincia ludaea at the expense of the Herodian dynasty. The final story is the most famous, previously considered the earliest, rather than the latest; that of Josephus.Alexander the Great in Jerusalem demonstrates how the historical tradition consistently maintained the moral and sacral superiority of the Jerusalem temple and of Judaism, making Alexander either embrace monotheism or prostrate himself before the Judean high priest. This not only bolstered Judean self-confidence under conditions of military and political inferiority, but also brought the changing foreign rulers into the fold of Judean sacred history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When I sat down with Dr. Ory Amitay, his passion for myth, history, and ancient cultures was infectious. Our conversation about his new book, Alexander the Great in Jerusalem: Myth and History, Oxford University Press, 2025, quickly revealed that for Ory, the real intrigue isn't whether Alexander literally visited Jerusalem, but how and why this story was created and retold for centuries. Ory traced his fascination with this intersection of myth and reality back to his Israeli upbringing and Berkeley days, where he mastered ancient languages and ventured beyond traditional Jewish sources. He described how, over time, different versions of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem reflected shifting political climates—from the Seleucid takeover to Roman conquest. Myths, he explained, were tools to help communities navigate upheaval, envisioning themselves in relation to powerful foreign rulers.  Pressed for the historical “truth,” Ory smiled and emphasized that the stories' meaning—how they address the anxieties and hopes of their tellers—outweighs whether Alexander's visit “really” happened. As he pursues new projects, translating ancient versions of these tales and writing a book on Western civilization, I left inspired by his view that exploring old myths is also about understanding how we shape, and are shaped by, our stories about ourselves. Alexander the Great in Jerusalem: Myth and History discusses four different stories told in antiquity about the meeting between Alexander the Great and the Judeans of Jerusalem. In history, this meeting, if it happened, passed without noticeable events. Into the historical void stepped various Judean storytellers, who wrote not what was, but what could (or even should) have been.The tradition as a whole deals with an issue that resurfaced time and again in ancient Judean history: conquest and regime installment by new foreign rulers. It does so by using Alexander as a cipher for a current Hellenistic and Roman foreign rule. The earliest version can be traced to the context of the Seleukid monarch Antiochos III "the Great", and postulates a Judean text from that time that has been hitherto unknown, and which survived in a Byzantine recension (epsilon) of the Alexander Romance. The second and third chapters turn to rabbinic sources, and deal with the Judean approaches and attitudes towards Roman occupation and rule, first at the advent of Pompey and then at the institution of Provincia ludaea at the expense of the Herodian dynasty. The final story is the most famous, previously considered the earliest, rather than the latest; that of Josephus.Alexander the Great in Jerusalem demonstrates how the historical tradition consistently maintained the moral and sacral superiority of the Jerusalem temple and of Judaism, making Alexander either embrace monotheism or prostrate himself before the Judean high priest. This not only bolstered Judean self-confidence under conditions of military and political inferiority, but also brought the changing foreign rulers into the fold of Judean sacred history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

When I sat down with Dr. Ory Amitay, his passion for myth, history, and ancient cultures was infectious. Our conversation about his new book, Alexander the Great in Jerusalem: Myth and History, Oxford University Press, 2025, quickly revealed that for Ory, the real intrigue isn't whether Alexander literally visited Jerusalem, but how and why this story was created and retold for centuries. Ory traced his fascination with this intersection of myth and reality back to his Israeli upbringing and Berkeley days, where he mastered ancient languages and ventured beyond traditional Jewish sources. He described how, over time, different versions of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem reflected shifting political climates—from the Seleucid takeover to Roman conquest. Myths, he explained, were tools to help communities navigate upheaval, envisioning themselves in relation to powerful foreign rulers.  Pressed for the historical “truth,” Ory smiled and emphasized that the stories' meaning—how they address the anxieties and hopes of their tellers—outweighs whether Alexander's visit “really” happened. As he pursues new projects, translating ancient versions of these tales and writing a book on Western civilization, I left inspired by his view that exploring old myths is also about understanding how we shape, and are shaped by, our stories about ourselves. Alexander the Great in Jerusalem: Myth and History discusses four different stories told in antiquity about the meeting between Alexander the Great and the Judeans of Jerusalem. In history, this meeting, if it happened, passed without noticeable events. Into the historical void stepped various Judean storytellers, who wrote not what was, but what could (or even should) have been.The tradition as a whole deals with an issue that resurfaced time and again in ancient Judean history: conquest and regime installment by new foreign rulers. It does so by using Alexander as a cipher for a current Hellenistic and Roman foreign rule. The earliest version can be traced to the context of the Seleukid monarch Antiochos III "the Great", and postulates a Judean text from that time that has been hitherto unknown, and which survived in a Byzantine recension (epsilon) of the Alexander Romance. The second and third chapters turn to rabbinic sources, and deal with the Judean approaches and attitudes towards Roman occupation and rule, first at the advent of Pompey and then at the institution of Provincia ludaea at the expense of the Herodian dynasty. The final story is the most famous, previously considered the earliest, rather than the latest; that of Josephus.Alexander the Great in Jerusalem demonstrates how the historical tradition consistently maintained the moral and sacral superiority of the Jerusalem temple and of Judaism, making Alexander either embrace monotheism or prostrate himself before the Judean high priest. This not only bolstered Judean self-confidence under conditions of military and political inferiority, but also brought the changing foreign rulers into the fold of Judean sacred history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

When I sat down with Dr. Ory Amitay, his passion for myth, history, and ancient cultures was infectious. Our conversation about his new book, Alexander the Great in Jerusalem: Myth and History, Oxford University Press, 2025, quickly revealed that for Ory, the real intrigue isn't whether Alexander literally visited Jerusalem, but how and why this story was created and retold for centuries. Ory traced his fascination with this intersection of myth and reality back to his Israeli upbringing and Berkeley days, where he mastered ancient languages and ventured beyond traditional Jewish sources. He described how, over time, different versions of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem reflected shifting political climates—from the Seleucid takeover to Roman conquest. Myths, he explained, were tools to help communities navigate upheaval, envisioning themselves in relation to powerful foreign rulers.  Pressed for the historical “truth,” Ory smiled and emphasized that the stories' meaning—how they address the anxieties and hopes of their tellers—outweighs whether Alexander's visit “really” happened. As he pursues new projects, translating ancient versions of these tales and writing a book on Western civilization, I left inspired by his view that exploring old myths is also about understanding how we shape, and are shaped by, our stories about ourselves. Alexander the Great in Jerusalem: Myth and History discusses four different stories told in antiquity about the meeting between Alexander the Great and the Judeans of Jerusalem. In history, this meeting, if it happened, passed without noticeable events. Into the historical void stepped various Judean storytellers, who wrote not what was, but what could (or even should) have been.The tradition as a whole deals with an issue that resurfaced time and again in ancient Judean history: conquest and regime installment by new foreign rulers. It does so by using Alexander as a cipher for a current Hellenistic and Roman foreign rule. The earliest version can be traced to the context of the Seleukid monarch Antiochos III "the Great", and postulates a Judean text from that time that has been hitherto unknown, and which survived in a Byzantine recension (epsilon) of the Alexander Romance. The second and third chapters turn to rabbinic sources, and deal with the Judean approaches and attitudes towards Roman occupation and rule, first at the advent of Pompey and then at the institution of Provincia ludaea at the expense of the Herodian dynasty. The final story is the most famous, previously considered the earliest, rather than the latest; that of Josephus.Alexander the Great in Jerusalem demonstrates how the historical tradition consistently maintained the moral and sacral superiority of the Jerusalem temple and of Judaism, making Alexander either embrace monotheism or prostrate himself before the Judean high priest. This not only bolstered Judean self-confidence under conditions of military and political inferiority, but also brought the changing foreign rulers into the fold of Judean sacred history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

When I sat down with Dr. Ory Amitay, his passion for myth, history, and ancient cultures was infectious. Our conversation about his new book, Alexander the Great in Jerusalem: Myth and History, Oxford University Press, 2025, quickly revealed that for Ory, the real intrigue isn't whether Alexander literally visited Jerusalem, but how and why this story was created and retold for centuries. Ory traced his fascination with this intersection of myth and reality back to his Israeli upbringing and Berkeley days, where he mastered ancient languages and ventured beyond traditional Jewish sources. He described how, over time, different versions of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem reflected shifting political climates—from the Seleucid takeover to Roman conquest. Myths, he explained, were tools to help communities navigate upheaval, envisioning themselves in relation to powerful foreign rulers.  Pressed for the historical “truth,” Ory smiled and emphasized that the stories' meaning—how they address the anxieties and hopes of their tellers—outweighs whether Alexander's visit “really” happened. As he pursues new projects, translating ancient versions of these tales and writing a book on Western civilization, I left inspired by his view that exploring old myths is also about understanding how we shape, and are shaped by, our stories about ourselves. Alexander the Great in Jerusalem: Myth and History discusses four different stories told in antiquity about the meeting between Alexander the Great and the Judeans of Jerusalem. In history, this meeting, if it happened, passed without noticeable events. Into the historical void stepped various Judean storytellers, who wrote not what was, but what could (or even should) have been.The tradition as a whole deals with an issue that resurfaced time and again in ancient Judean history: conquest and regime installment by new foreign rulers. It does so by using Alexander as a cipher for a current Hellenistic and Roman foreign rule. The earliest version can be traced to the context of the Seleukid monarch Antiochos III "the Great", and postulates a Judean text from that time that has been hitherto unknown, and which survived in a Byzantine recension (epsilon) of the Alexander Romance. The second and third chapters turn to rabbinic sources, and deal with the Judean approaches and attitudes towards Roman occupation and rule, first at the advent of Pompey and then at the institution of Provincia ludaea at the expense of the Herodian dynasty. The final story is the most famous, previously considered the earliest, rather than the latest; that of Josephus.Alexander the Great in Jerusalem demonstrates how the historical tradition consistently maintained the moral and sacral superiority of the Jerusalem temple and of Judaism, making Alexander either embrace monotheism or prostrate himself before the Judean high priest. This not only bolstered Judean self-confidence under conditions of military and political inferiority, but also brought the changing foreign rulers into the fold of Judean sacred history.

Title: Problematic Paperwork Text: Acts 25:13-27 FCF: We often struggle remaining focused when the ungodly use political means for selfish gain. Prop: Because God providentially accomplishes His plan through political maneuvering, we must stay focused on the Kingdom of God. Scripture Intro: [Slide 1] Turn in your bible to Acts chapter 25. In a moment we'll read from the Legacy Standard Bible starting in verse 13. You can follow along in the pew bible or whatever version you prefer. Last week, Paul once again faced a preliminary hearing in front of his Jewish accusers. But this time he sat before the new governor of the area, Festus. Festus is historically known as a fair and wise ruler who helped ease the tensions between Rome and the Jews in the few years he served as the procurator of the province. But last week we saw how, in an attempt to establish good will and favor among the more elite Jewish men, he tried to move Paul's trial to Jerusalem. He also knew that if he desired to better understand the religious disputes between Paul and the Jews, the best place for this would be Jerusalem. But, as we know, Paul used a Roman law which protects Roman citizens from unjust judges and unscrupulous accusers. Paul appealed to Caesar. This effectively ended the preliminary trial and set in motion the events that would lead to Paul arriving in Rome as Jesus said he would. But today, we will see an interesting interaction between two local rulers. Festus has a problem and he is hoping Herod Agrippa the Second can help him find a solution. His problem boils down to… of all things… paperwork. Please stand with me to give honor to and to focus on the reading of the Word of God. Invocation: Almighty God and infinite Father You are above all things. You are surprised by nothing. You have written everything. All things are known to You and Your arm is never too short to reach or too weak to lift that which You desire. So much so that even the will of men is not in Your way. Instead, You paradoxically work through men's wills to accomplish Your purposes while still maintaining absolute control and giving men responsibility for their choices. It is a tension in scripture that many attempt to explain but often cheapen one or both of these truths in the process. Father help us to see how You have ordered all things so that we can trust Your promises that all things work together for good for those who love You and are called according to Your purposes through Your Son. Use Your Spirit today to teach us once again these valuable truths. We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen. Transition: Let us get right to the text today to see what the Lord has for us. I.) God providentially accomplishes His plan through political maneuvering, so we must trust the Lord. (13-22) a. [Slide 2] 13 - Now when several days had passed, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea and greeted Festus. i. So who is Herod Agrippa and Bernice? ii. Herod is a name mentioned several times throughout the New Testament, but logic would dictate to us that not all Herods can be the same Herod. iii. Furthermore, we have second names added to the end of some which help to differentiate some Herods from others. iv. The Scriptures mention Herod the Great, Herod Philip I, Herod Antipas, Herod Archelaus, Herodias, and Herod Agrippa. But who's who? v. [Slide 3] On the screen behind me we see the Herodian dynasty and where each person is mentioned in the scriptures. vi. Herod the Great ruled when Jesus was born. He had several wives giving many kingly heirs who divided the region of Judea. vii. All of the Herodian line served as Jewish Kings ruling under the direct supervision of the Roman Empire. They were uniquely suited to rule because they were Jews but were loyal to the Empire. viii. In the book of Acts we've seen Herod Agrippa the I, who is the grandson of Herod the Great, he killed James the son of Zebedee and imprisoned Peter in Acts 12. ix. In this text, this is Herod Agrippa the First's Son. Herod Agrippa II. x. Herod Agrippa II studied in Rome under Emperor Claudius. Claudius was quite fond of him and was prepared to give all of Judea to him to rule, but when Herod's father died he was only 17 years of age and was not old enough to navigate the tensions growing at the time. xi. When he turned 21 Emperor Claudius gave him rule over several territories to the East and Northeast of Judea. Still, Claudius, up to his death, gave more area for Agrippa II to rule as often as he could. This continued through to Nero, Claudius' son, and Nero actually awarded Agrippa II the city of Caesarea Philippi, which he renamed Neronias in honor of the Emperor who gave him the city to rule over. xii. One of the territories Claudius gave Agrippa came with the role of becoming curator of the temple. From the vestments that were required, to the appointing of the High Priest, Agrippa the Second was the official secular head of the Jewish religion. xiii. But who is Bernice? Well, keen observers would notice that Bernice is listed next to Herod Agrippa and Drucilla. What does this mean? xiv. Bernice and Drucilla are both Herod Agrippa II's sisters. xv. Drucilla, we know was married to Felix, but who is Bernice married to? xvi. Well, that is the awkward part. In her lifetime she was married three times. She was also the mistress of Emperor Vespasian's son Titus. xvii. And while we could see her here as an adviser or co-ruler with her brother, rumors abound implying an incestuous relationship. Probably these were fueled by the fact that every time one of these marriages or adulteries failed, she returned to live and rule with her brother. xviii. Scholarship seems sharply divided over whether or not there was actually an incestuous relationship here. Modern scholars seem to favor the idea that although the rumors abounded, this was probably all they were. Rumors. xix. In fact, many scholars note that Agrippa II and Bernice were actually fairly moral people for being Hellenized and Romanized Jews. They often aided the poor, supported justice, and generally upheld the common good of the people over which they ruled. xx. They were no where near righteous people and certainly they could do all these things and the rumors still be true. xxi. They arrive, no doubt to greet Festus and welcome him to the area. But Festus intends to benefit from their visit in another way. b. [Slide 4] 14 - And while they were spending many days there, Festus laid Paul's case before the king, saying, i. It was a great opportunity for Festus to involve Herod and Bernice on this case for several reasons. I'll try to highlight that as we go forward. ii. Festus will go on to describe his impression of the preliminary trial which ended in Paul's Provoactio Ad Caesarem. – his appeal to Caesar. iii. The Emperor at the time was Nero. 1. When we Christians hear that name, immediately we wonder why Paul would have appealed to this man for help. 2. But at this time, Nero is only 22 years old and about 5 years into his reign. He has been aided by Seneca and Burrus, two tutors who helped him make wise decisions as a ruler. 3. Most recently in the spring of AD 59 his mother committed suicide, at least that is what the general population thought. In reality, he had his mother killed. 4. So, Nero is starting to go off the rails a little, but he is nowhere close to where he would be in AD 64 and beyond. 5. As long as his tutors are alive, he will continue to make wise decisions. Up to, a little after Paul stands trial before him. 6. Interesting how his good leadership lasts until Paul is released. iv. But why does Festus even bring this up to Herod? v. As we'll see in a few moments, Festus truly is perplexed by this case. vi. As one of, if not the first case he tries as a governor, he must be a bit discouraged to have it be so odd. vii. Herod Agrippa, though not being a righteous person, had already been a successful ruler in the area for over a decade. He's had experience with Jewish people, being one of them, and with the Jewish religion and its intricacies and finer points of theology, being the temple's curator. He is also a favorite of Emperor Nero and his father before him. viii. It makes a lot of sense actually that Festus would open up to Herod in this way and seek his perspective on the matter. Because Festus has a problem. ix. That problem is that this case seems open and shut but because Paul has appealed to Caesar, he's got to figure out what to put in his report to the Emperor. x. So the following is Festus' view of the case. Let's break it down. c. [Slide 5] “There is a man who was left as a prisoner by Felix; 15 - and when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews brought charges against him, asking for a sentence of condemnation against him. 16 - I answered them that it is not the custom of the Romans to hand over any man before the accused meets his accusers face to face and has an opportunity to make his defense against the charges. i. So already we see a few things that Festus says that is different than what Luke recorded previously. ii. The details though are very compatible with what Luke said and do not contradict anything, therefore, it is best to assume that any difference in Festus' story is PROBABLY to paint himself in the best possible light. iii. Right off the bat he shifts the blame to Felix. He seemed all to eager to take the case and deal with it himself… but now that he is in the thick of it, he wants to blame Felix for not getting the job done. iv. Then he says that the Jews were not merely wanting Paul brought to Jerusalem for a trial – but their aim was to condemn him to death. He does not tell Herod that they were asking for this to be done as a favor to them. That might imply a seedier political relationship than he wants to be associated with before this influential King. v. But Festus refused them based on Roman customs. According to Roman custom, the plaintiff must charge the person to their face and allow them to give a defense. vi. This is why he insisted on them joining him in his court in Caesarea. vii. Festus continues… d. [Slide 6] 17 - So after they had assembled here, I did not delay, but on the next day took my seat on the judgment seat and ordered the man to be brought before me. 18 - When the accusers stood up, they were not bringing any charges against him for the evil deeds I was expecting, 19 - but they had some points of disagreement with him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus, a dead man whom Paul asserted to be alive. i. Festus once again paints himself as a just ruler. He got right to judging the case immediately. Without the information about the Jews seeking this as a favor it makes it seem more like he is a kind and efficient ruler rather than someone seeking to placate some powerful and influential Jewish men. ii. Festus' perspective of the charges against Paul and Paul's defense are intriguing. iii. They are intriguing because the Jews no doubt charged Paul with some level of sedition against the Emperor for starting riots. No doubt Festus came into this thinking that this would be their primary charge against Paul. iv. But Festus doesn't mention it here. v. Most likely he has utterly dismissed these charges from his perspective simply because there was no evidence to conclude such a thing. vi. But as the trial neared the end, Festus summarizes the trial as basically a religious disagreement all concerning a certain man named Jesus who was dead and whom Paul claims to be alive. vii. Festus shows his ignorance of the area and the history of the area. No doubt Herod Agrippa II was well aware of the Jesus in question. viii. Paul has successfully, by the grace of God, made the trial about the gospel. ix. But since it is about the gospel… how is Festus, a Roman, supposed to deal with this? e. [Slide 7] 20 - And being perplexed about how to investigate such matters, I was asking whether he was willing to go to Jerusalem and there to be tried on these matters. 21 - But when Paul appealed to be held in custody for the Emperor's decision, I ordered him to be kept in custody until I send him to Caesar.” i. Festus once again avoids any hint that his actions were motivated by political favors. Luke tells us they were. So we affirm that truth with certainty. ii. This doesn't necessarily mean that Festus is lying though. At least not completely. Certainly, if he wanted to rule on a religious matter, in order to do so it would be best to go to Jerusalem and seek counsel from those who understood the religion better. iii. And that is why I think Paul actually appealed to Caesar. I think Paul understood that even if he survived the journey to get to Jerusalem, the case being about religion would certainly leave him vulnerable. iv. He could be kept in prison for a long time, and with Rome somewhat backing this decision it could lead to great persecution among all Jewish Christians. v. Festus says that Paul appealed to be held in custody for the Emperor's decision. vi. Festus doesn't have any problem doing that… vii. But you can tell that Festus is bothered by this. We won't understand fully why until the end of this passage. But what is clear is that Festus wants Agrippa to weigh in and hopefully weigh in in agreement with how he handled the situation. f. [Slide 8] 22 - Then Agrippa said to Festus, “I also would like to hear the man myself.” “Tomorrow,” he said, “you shall hear him.” i. Here we see that Herod Agrippa has an interest in the case. ii. Being a Jew himself and being part of this great Herodian dynasty which has been woven to this time of Jesus, it would be of genuine interest for Herod to meet Paul and understand this sect of Judaism which has turned all the world upside down. iii. He is in town for a few days. He might as well hear the case himself. iv. Festus readily agrees, because that is what he was shooting for anyway, and plans to have another hearing for Paul the very next day. g. [Slide 9] Summary of the Point: One of the difficult things about teaching through a book, is that oftentimes the lessons overlap significantly. For the last several sermons we've seen the same truth repackaged in several different ways. Rather than skipping over this material or blitzing through it, I see it instead as an opportunity for us to really be stretched on this teaching. If God repeats Himself, it seems to me that what He is telling us over and over again might be important. Paul is over two years into these legal proceedings. He is on his second governor. And the case just can't quite move forward. Yet he has been assured that he will go to Rome and preach the gospel. He has also been told by Jesus Himself that he will present the gospel to Jews, Gentiles and to Kings. So far, Paul has not yet shared the gospel to Kings and he is not yet in Rome. And perhaps he saw that as one prophesy to be fulfilled when he speaks to the Emperor. But the injustice of the case against him, the nature of the charges, the weakness of Felix, and now the political maneuvers of Festus to try to not look like a completely incompetent ruler to the Emperor himself, is all coming together to fulfill exactly what God's will is for the apostle Paul. He will go to Rome. He will present the gospel to Kings. Putting ourselves in the position of Paul acquires our first application from this text. We must trust the Lord. Oh how easy it would be to disbelieve. But we have similar promises the Lord has made to us – promises which have taken much longer than 2 years. Paul's story here provides the pattern. We too must trust the Lord. His promises are always true. Transition: [Slide 10(blank)] And in a familiar pairing, one we've seen several times, we must again understand that trusting the Lord is not passive. We have more to do than simply watch and wait. We have other callings we must fulfill while we wait on His promises to come to pass. II.) God providentially accomplishes His plan through political maneuvering, so we must be ready to give a defense for the hope that we have in us. (23-27) a. [Slide 11] 23 - So, on the next day when Agrippa came together with Bernice amid great pomp, and entered the hall accompanied by the commanders and the prominent men of the city, at the order of Festus, Paul was brought in. i. So, this is actually a rather big to do. ii. Herod and Bernice come in with great fanfare and celebration. The hall is filled with many military commanders and prominent people of Caesarea which would certainly be primarily gentile people. iii. In other words, this is not like the trial before Felix and the trial before Festus, in that Paul does not face a large contingent of JEWISH accusers. iv. Instead, his fate is already sealed. He is already going to Rome to Caesar's court. v. There is not really anything impeding Paul from saying whatever he wants to. He needs to be somewhat careful not to make a case of sedition against the Empire – but given the fact that Festus thinks this is about the gospel – Paul is going to be able to completely let loose with it… in front of a large number of prominent Roman officials. And of course – Herod Agrippa. vi. Paul is called to join them and the deposition is under way. b. [Slide 12] 24 - And Festus said, “King Agrippa, and all you gentlemen here present with us, you see this man about whom all the people of the Jews appealed to me, both at Jerusalem and here, loudly declaring that he ought not to live any longer. 25 - But I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, and since he himself appealed to the Emperor, I decided to send him. i. Festus gives all in attendance a very brief overview of the previous trial and how they arrived where they are. ii. Notice that Festus does not indicate any wrong doing on his part. Paul's appeal to Caesar here is not so subtly painted as the ONLY reason Paul is still incarcerated. iii. It has absolutely nothing to do with Festus wanting to give a favor to the Jews in a religious case that he could have simply dismissed. iv. But his appeal must be honored regardless. v. But there is just one problem with that. vi. And its what has been perplexing Festus this whole time. vii. Its… paperwork. He doesn't know how to fill out his paperwork… c. [Slide 13] 26 - Yet I have nothing definite about him to write to my lord. Therefore I have brought him before you all and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that after the investigation has taken place, I may have something to write. 27 - For it seems absurd to me in sending a prisoner, not to indicate also the charges against him.” i. Festus reveals that he is going to send Paul to Caesar… but according to Roman trial custom, he must send Paul with official notes from the trial. ii. Since no verdict had been handed down, and since the charges were mostly about religious differences between Judaism and the sect of the Nazareans, there really is nothing Roman to send up the chain. iii. This is absurd, and even quite dangerous for Festus to do. iv. To send a case to the Emperor without cause could lead to ramifications against Festus. The Emperor might conclude that he is incompetent or inept. Why did he not dismiss the case? Why did he not hand it back to the Jews jurisdiction? v. And now we see a wonderful set up for what exactly will be written to the Emperor. And Herod Agrippa II is the key. vi. If Herod hears the case and agrees that the only reason Paul is being sent to the Emperor is because he appealed to him… then Festus won't be seen as an inept ruler. Paul will get the blame as a citizen who jumped the gun and appealed before it was really necessary. vii. But more on that in a couple weeks. d. [Slide 14] Summary of the Point: Again, the political situation of Festus and his reaching out to Herod for help are all part of the providential plan of God to bring about His prophesied will for Paul's life. Not only will these events hasten forward Paul's trip to Rome, but it will also allow Paul to truly give the gospel… to kings. King Herod Agrippa II, like several Herod's before him, will hear the gospel. And although we won't see it today, the application here is again drawn from putting ourselves in Paul's position. His appeal has been granted. He is going to Caesar. Does he really need to stand before this group to say anything? Could he just remain silent? Since there is some risk in him speaking and potentially provide charges he could be convicted for – isn't it just best for him to be quiet? Jesus was quiet before His accusers. Shouldn't Paul also be? Jesus was prophesied to die – Paul is prophesied to preach in Rome and before Kings. Therefore, as an act of faith and obedience, Paul must give a defense for the hope that he has in Him. We too must give a defense. We have been promised trouble. We have been promised difficulty. We have been promised an eternal kingdom. So we must be ready to give a defense for the hope we have. Conclusion: So, CBC, what have we learned today to guide our belief and our lifestyles? Basics of Faith and Practice: [Slide 15] Once again, God's will for us is a tapestry of events that He has orchestrated to accomplish His purposes. He promises us that these events are always for our good and His glory. He promises never to leave or forsake us. He promises that all we experience will lead to the perfecting and endurance of our faith. And if God's providential hand works in all things, then it also works in something like political maneuvering. Festus is trying to cover his own butt here. He is trying to make sure his goose doesn't get cooked because of his very first case in this new province he is governing going a little sideways. How is he going to go about doing that? He is going to enlist the advice and help of a favored and seasoned ruler. This should keep him from getting into trouble for sending Paul to the Emperor for virtually no reason. But through even this, the Lord providentially orchestrates the fulfillment of what He has prophesied to Paul. Next week Paul will share the gospel with a King. And after that He will be sent to Rome. Paul's struggles are often ours. We struggle to trust God when His promises look like they aren't moving forward. We struggle to correctly identify and capitalize on opportunities to share our faith with people around us. But God's control over every aspect of life motivates us to not only to continue to trust His promises but to share our faith boldly. Let's look into this a little deeper. 1.) [Slide 16] Mind Transformation: “What truth must we believe from this text?” or “What might we not naturally believe that we must believe because of what this text has said?” We must affirm that God providentially works through political maneuvering to accomplish His will. a. We all assume that political maneuvering will happen. Why? b. Well, you don't have to be a student of history for very long to understand this. c. Anyone who has had a brother, sister, or even a close cousin knows what it means to maneuver a situation to be personally advantageous to you. d. No matter what happens you expect every person to make it seem like they did the best they could under the circumstances and if there is a chance to make yourself look good or like the helpless victim – you are going to do that. e. Why? f. Well although many deny it theologically, the truth of the matter is that our entire being is naturally corrupt and sinful. g. Any parent will tell you this of their child. They know that there is no such thing as a child that has never stolen, never hit, never bit, never yelled, never disobeyed or never lied. They don't exist. h. Why? i. Because all men are wicked and depraved and it all begins at conception. j. David said, in sin my mother conceived me. He wasn't talking about her sin, but his own. He was a sinner the moment he came into existence. k. The surprising part of this text is NOT that Festus tries to present himself in the best possible light. It is NOT that he tries to get Herod on his side to leverage the Emperor's view of him. It is NOT that Festus uses every opportuinity here to try to get OUT of trouble in this particular case. l. So far, everyone acts as we would expect them to. m. What we might NOT anticipate is God using and even orchestrating these events to accomplish His will. n. But as we've pointed out several times, there are a myriad of examples in the scriptures where God overtly uses the sin or selfishness of men to do what He has planned. There are even some examples where God designs what He has planned around the sin of men. As with Pharoah – his sin was necessary so that God could judge Egypt to the extent that all nations would know He is God. o. The bottom line is that there is nothing that happens that God has not already designed and written to be. That gets sticky and tough for us to swallow when we start talking about sin and humans choosing to live sinfully and selfishly. p. We know that God doesn't tempt anyone to sin and that God doesn't sin. But we also know that men sinning is part of His plan, which He has written for His creation. q. These truths must be allowed to blend together. r. And in this text Festus' natural compulsion to protect himself politically, leads to God's promises to Paul coming to pass. s. But if we serve this God, and we trust this God, knowing that His orchestrating of all things is no real concern to us. He has allowed us to have at least a perception of freedom in our decision making and even requires us to consider His will and His ways as we do this. But somehow along with that nothing that happens will ever disrupt, alter, delay, or in any way go against His will for His creation. t. And we shouldn't want it any other way. u. We should want a God who does this. We don't want a God who has ceded control in any real way. v. God has not left anything to chance or human discretion. And because of that… His promises are always true. 2.) [Slide 17] Refutation: “What lies must we cast down” or “What do we naturally believe, or have been taught to believe, that this passage shows is false?” We must deny that God merely works around men's sinfulness to accomplish His purposes. a. Some have suggested a work around for the paradox we are experiencing and wrestling with in these last few chapters of Acts. b. That goes something like this… God allows men to freely choose to do what they will, even to sin… c. But God is stronger, faster, more knowledgeable, and able to weave and maneuver all things and bend all things back to accomplish His will and ways. d. However, this solution does not actually solve the problem. At best is presents man's decisions as a mere illusion. One that if we go too far with, God is quick to hit the undo button or arrange it in such a way that it still does what He wishes. e. At worst it contradicts clear texts of scripture that indicate that God's will for all of creation has already been written. f. And in this text we see clearly God is not working around but in and through man's sinfulness to accomplish His purposes. g. That being said, we ought to deny what is called open theism, this view where the future is undetermined and God responds to man's actions to weave the course He desires. h. We ought also deny that God has every possible decision of man mapped and figured into His divine plan – since this again is not what the scriptures teach. i. Instead, God has written the end from the beginning. There is nothing that happens that was not already written and orchestrated for His will to be accomplished. And all that happens to those who love Him and are called to His purpose is for their good. j. Even though this view does not answer all the questions – the other solutions create more problems than they do solutions. k. It is best simply to confess that God works in and through man's sinfulness to accomplish His purposes while at the same time not being the tempter. l. Confessing these truths motivates us to apply this text in two ways. Both of which are based on putting ourselves in Paul's shoes. 3.) [Slide 18] Exhortation: “What actions should we take?” or “What is this passage specifically commanding us to do that we don't naturally do or aren't currently doing?” We must trust the Lord. a. How comforting it is to know that it is absolutely impossible to find ourselves outside of God's Hidden will for our lives. b. We can and often do find ourselves outside of God's moral will. When we find ourselves overcome by a sin and seek forgiveness and cleansing through confession and repentance – certainly we have stepped off God's moral will for us. c. But we NEVER deviate from His hidden will. d. When others sin against us, when political corruption and maneuvering happens before us, we can know and rest assured that God is not sitting in heaven wringing His hands, shrugging, saying, “I can't do anything buddy. Sorry! I have to let them choose what they want to do.” Nor is God in heaven saying, “Ok, they played knight to D4 so I'll move my rook to make them take it back and that will lead to…” e. No! f. Instead, God has all our days planned. All we experience is designed to lead us to what He has planned. g. That means we can trust Him. Fully. Not his ability to play a game. Not His ability to win in the end somehow… but that all our ways are known to Him. h. There is no reason to fear. He has us exactly where He wants us… ALWAYS! i. What does that mean? 4.) [Slide 19] Exhortation: “What actions should we take?” or “What is this passage specifically commanding us to do that we don't naturally do or aren't currently doing?” We must always be ready to give a defense for the hope we have in us. Even to those who can do terrible things to us. a. Every situation is a great opportunity to share the gospel. b. Before judges, juries, kings, Federal agents, no matter whether justice is being served or subverted, no matter whether we face enemies or friends – it is always a good time for us to share the hope we have. c. The bible is clear – all kinds of men are being called by God into His family. Even the most corrupt political people you can think of – they are exactly 1 measure of God's saving grace away from being His child and living holy lives. Exactly 1. d. Will you be the instrument God uses to unite them to saving faith in Jesus Christ? e. Knowing God is in control of everything always should embolden you to share your faith without pause and without fear. f. Why? g. Because God isn't playing a game of chess and God isn't helpless against man's supposed free will. Instead, God has written everything in your life already. h. So go for it. Unleash the gospel. i. And speaking of the gospel. 5.) [Slide 20] Evangelism: “What about this text points us to Jesus Christ, the gospel, and how we are restored?” The gospel is primarily about Jesus' death and resurrection. It isn't about you. a. Notice what Festus did understand. b. The gospel was about a man who was dead that Paul said is alive. c. Festus wouldn't understand or believe naturally that such a man could have been raised from the dead. d. But in one sense he does understand that the whole of what Paul preached depends on this man being alive. e. My friends the gospel is all about Jesus' death and resurrection. The fact that Jesus died for sinners and was raised according to prophesy, is the essence of the gospel. f. Everything hinges on these facts. That Jesus died and rose again. g. And I know, many well meaning preachers have advised people that when they want to share the gospel with people that they should share their testimony. And I know that really sounds like smart advice. h. But listen – the gospel is not about what YOU believed, what YOU experienced, what YOU confessed, or what YOU did. i. The gospel is about what they MUST believe, what they MUST confess and what JESUS experienced and did. j. I would caution you away from your personal testimony, especially if you do not practice it over and over again to ensure that you make it about Jesus and not about you. k. It is very easy for us to talk about ourselves. And that is why many personal testimonies of salvation end up being as much about us as they are about Jesus. l. But listen, you are merely the reward Jesus acquired for fulfilling His mission. Obedient, faithful, holy people are the reward for His suffering. m. The gospel is Jesus. His death and His resurrection and much more. But that is where it starts. n. If you have believed anything less, then you do not have the gospel. o. And if you don't have the gospel I'd like to invite you to come speak to an Elder today. We would love to tell you more. [Slide 21 (end)] Let me close in a prayer by the Puritan Philip Doddridge May God's grace visit all who suffer loss, and may your compassionate eye regard them where they live. May your providence cement, strengthen, and adorn them. For unless the Lord builds the city, they labor in vain who build it. May the candle of the Lord shine on them, and your Spirit enlighten and renew their souls. May peace and prosperity, friendship and faith always flourish in this neighborhood and city. Fill my neighbors' troubles with compassion, Lord, so they may exchange joy for mourning, and beauty for ashes. So that those who lament may rejoice with you, and that at length you may share with them the security and joy of the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, where no flames will be felt except those of love. In the meantime, may our eyes be lifted up to heaven, in the humble hope and fervent prayer for those around us, that true Christian faith would spread throughout the entire world. And may that faith prevail in our own hearts, that we may faithfully practice and grow in you. So will we understand your lovingkindness, Lord, as we live our daily lives. And though there may be mysteries of providence we cannot explain, we will believe that your paths are mercy and truth, and find the truest and securest peace in our passage to everlasting joy. In Jesus name we pray this, Amen. Benediction: May the Lord who does not forsake those who earnestly seek His face, Who provides a safe retreat for weary souls in troubled times. Show you to be a stronghold for the oppressed, A stronghold in time of trouble. Until we meet again, go in peace.

The rise and fall of King Herod Agrippa I illustrates God's opposition to human pride and the unstoppable nature of His Word. Despite persecution of the early church including the execution of James and imprisonment of Peter, God's sovereign justice prevailed when Herod accepted worship as a god and was struck down.• Background on the Herodian dynasty as puppet rulers installed by Rome• Herod the Great was the first in this dynasty, ruling through fear and brutal tactics• The Herods maintained power through brutal oppression despite public works projects• Herod Agrippa I persecuted the church by killing James and imprisoning Peter• God's dramatic judgment fell on Herod when he accepted divine worship• The Word of God continued to grow despite persecution• Four key lessons: the danger of power and wealth, God's opposition to pride, God's sovereign justice, and the unstoppable nature of God's WordIf you've never done so, tell God you're opening your heart to believe in Jesus as your Savior and receive the promise of eternal life in Him.Video available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSPhIM2SAmk

What if the birth of Jesus wasn't just sweet and sacred—but strategically subversive? In this episode Aaron J. Smith (www.aaronjsmith.net) joins as guest co-host to take a hard look at Matthew chapters 1 and 2 through the lens of power, empire, and authoritarian fear.We trace the political tension that pulses beneath every angelic message, Herodian sh*tfit, and nativity set piece. This isn't just theology—it's resistance, survival, and the God who sides with the vulnerable.Listen in and see what empire always fears most: a different kind of king.www.aaronjsmith.netAaron on BlueSky, Instagram, and Threads...Read LIT online: https://www.litbible.net/matthew-1 and https://www.litbible.net/matthew-2More about the Liberation & Inclusion Translation: https://www.litbible.net/translation-commitmentsSupport LIT & FIT: https://donorbox.org/found-in-translation-1...Opportunity Walks by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

In this message, Danny provides a historical overview of the Herodian dynasty, distinguishing between Herod the Great and his sons, including Herod Antipus, who is featured in the Luke passage. The sermon explores Herod's curiosity and desire for a sign from Jesus, contrasted with Jesus's profound silence. Danny emphasizes the significance of this encounter, highlighting how Herod, despite his power and position, missed the true identity of Jesus. The message also touches upon the innocence of Jesus as affirmed by both Pilate and Herod, and the prophetic fulfillment of these events. Verses Used:Luke 23:6-12Luke 13Isaiah chapter 6Deuteronomy 19:15Acts 4:25-26John's Revelation (general reference to Christ's return)

Appointed by the Romans as king of Judaea and thanks to his feature in the Gospel of Matthew, King Herod ‘the Great’ is one of the infamous figures from the whole of Ancient history. So what do we know about this ancient near eastern ruler, who in his lifetime had contacts with a series of ‘goliath’ figures from the ancient Mediterranean World: from Caesar to Cleopatra and from Marc Antony to Augustus. Dan Snow's History Hit podcast available at https://amzn.to/48HlmtH Books by Seth Schwartz available at https://amzn.to/49US5vJ ENJOY Ad-Free content, Bonus episodes, and Extra materials when joining our growing community on https://patreon.com/markvinet SUPPORT this channel by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at NO extra charge to you). Mark Vinet's HISTORY OF NORTH AMERICA podcast: www.parthenonpodcast.com/history-of-north-america Mark's TIMELINE Video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 Twitter: https://twitter.com/HistoricalJesu Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Mark's books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM Audio credit: Dan Snow's History Hit podcast (Episode 1337: King Herod with Seth Schwartz, professor of Classical Jewish Civilization at New York City’s Columbia University). Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Eve Harow took a break from the news and spent a few hours digging at one her favorite sites, Herodian. She interviewed archaeologist Amichai Lifshitz to get some context and just enjoyed a beautiful Judean day. It's about the moments.

The city of man will always try and triumph over the city of God. This is seen in the interaction between Christ and Herod. The Pharisees warn Jesus that Herod wants to kill him, but their motives are uncertain. They might be a faction that legitimately cares, or they might be with the rest of the Pharisees who want to silence Jesus. Herod himself represents the worldly pursuit of power, maintaining peace through intimidation by control and violence. John the Baptist is a clear victim of the tyranny demonstrated in the Herodian family.Christ seeks to confirm and establish the Lord's heavenly city. Christ seeks to bring the true vision of peace from heaven. This is not a kingdom that is established through fear and threat. No, it is a kingdom where one experiences the ideal of the shalom of God. A kingdom where one takes on the yoke of Christ, is in fellowship with God, and is restored rather than exploited. So, Christ, being confident about the true vision of peace (Jerusalem), does not cower before Herod. In fact, he makes his opinion known regarding Herod. He does not even address Herod, but instead calls him a "fox," exposing his weakness, smallness, and cunning ability to stand on the coattails of giants. Christ remains resolute in his mission, showing that true peace is not found in earthly empires but in the kingdom of God and entrance through the narrow door.Christ does not seek safety but willingly moves toward Jerusalem, knowing that Herod is not the threat but the earthly Jerusalem. His ministry of healing and casting out demons demonstrates his authority, yet Jerusalem rejects him because he does not fit their mold of a messianic king. The irony is that while people try to warn and protect Jesus, they fail to recognize that he is the one who has come to protect them, confirming the promise that God is a shield and defender. The ultimate rejection of Christ is not just by political rulers like Herod or Rome but by Jerusalem itself—the very city that should have embraced him as the fulfillment of God's promises. We are so deeply sinful, and it is so deep-rooted that we reject the prophet.Finally, we are challenged to reflect on the human tendency to resist God's work, much like Paul before his conversion, who "kicked against the goads." Despite Israel's rejection, Christ still offers the gospel and calls all humanity to repent. He weeps over Jerusalem, using imagery from the Exodus of the mother hen being like the eagle protecting its young. Christ knows that in order for Psalm 118 to be confirmed, he must be rejected by the builders only to be raised up as the cornerstone.The call to enter through the narrow door remains open right now. We are called to bow our necks under Christ's domain, discern what is pleasing to the Lord, and seek to live out his will. Let us mourn how the city of Jerusalem embraced Christ, let us celebrate God's sovereign will that He overcomes, and let us ultimately long for the vision of peace that comes from heaven. Praise be to God that even in this life, we have a taste of it. Let us walk as living sacrifices to our redeemer, knowing that our lives are hidden and secured in Him.

Joyful Non-Compliance. In this episode of the Voxology Podcast, Mike and Tim discuss the significance of synagogue life during the Jewish exile and how it shaped the identity of the Jewish people. They explore the relationship between Jesus and the Herod family, particularly focusing on Herod the Great's dual legacy as a builder and a tyrant. The conversation delves into the prophetic background surrounding Jesus' birth, the political climate of Judea, and how these elements influenced Jesus' teachings and parables. The episode concludes with reflections on the implications of these historical contexts for understanding Jesus' message. What was the complex dynamics of power during the time of Jesus, particularly the Herodian dynasty and its rulers, including Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip? How did Jesus interact with these figures and how were his teachings a form of subversion against the oppressive systems of power? What is D Willy's concept of 'joyful non-compliance' as a response to authority? How does it contrast with 'fearful compliance' that is prevalent in contemporary society? Ultimately, today's episode calls for a deeper understanding of the Kingdom of God and the active role believers can take in promoting its values in a world often dominated by greed and power struggles. As always, we encourage and would love discussion as we pursue. Feel free to email in questions to hello@voxpodcast.com, and to engage the conversation on Facebook and Instagram. We're on YouTube (if you're into that kinda thing): VOXOLOGY TV. Our Merch Store! ETSY Learn more about the Voxology Podcast Subscribe on iTunes or Spotify Support the Voxology Podcast on Patreon The Voxology Spotify channel can be found here: Voxology Radio Follow us on Instagram: @voxologypodcast and "like" us on Facebook Follow Mike on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mikeerre Music in this episode by Timothy John Stafford Instagram & Twitter: @GoneTimothy

01/05/2025 In an era of Herodian power-grabbing and religious lethargy, we have an opportunity to reclaim the joy and awe of those who move towards Jesus in humble worship.

The Western Wall  Part 9:  The Isaiah Stone  -  English and Spanish.  Near the southern end of the Western Wall, just below Robinson's Arch, a verse from the Scriptures is engraved into a Herodian stone. A leading archaeologist described it as 'one of the most dramatic and memorable finds of the excavations that followed the Six Day War.' This centuries-old paleo-Hebrew inscription has a message for us today!  Translated from a podcast originally recorded on January 17, 2023. El Muro Occidental - Parte 9: La piedra de Isaías - Inglés y español.  Cerca del extremo sur del Muro Occidental, justo debajo del Arco de Robinson, hay un versículo de las Escrituras grabado en una piedra herodiana. Un destacado arqueólogo lo describió como «uno de los hallazgos más espectaculares y memorables de las excavaciones que siguieron a la Guerra de los Seis Días». Esta inscripción paleohebrea de siglos de antigüedad tiene un mensaje para nosotros hoy.  Traducido de un podcast grabado originalmente el 17 de enero de 2023.  

Lessons from 'Meditations' by Marcus Aurelius. Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor from 161 to 180 and a Stoi,c philosopher. Marcus wrote his Meditations in Greek as a source for his own guidance and self-improvement. The historian Herodian wrote: "Alone of the emperors, he gave proof of his learning not by mere words or knowledge of philosophical doctrines but by his blameless character and temperate way of life." Ways to Support: Substack: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ijmakan.substack.com/subscribe?=⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://becomingantifragile.com/support⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Patreon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/BecomingAntifragile⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Episode Synopsis: In this episode of The Mummy Movie Podcast, we delve into the historical accuracy of the character Commodus, as portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix in the 2000 film Gladiator. We explore how closely the movie's depiction aligns with historical records and what creative liberties were taken in bringing this infamous Roman emperor to life on screen.Support the Show:Patreon: Support us on PatreonContact Us:Email: mummymoviepodcast@gmail.comEpisode References:Benfree. (2011). RoaringCrowd.wav. Retrieved from https://freesound.org/people/benfree/sounds/130568/Burgersdijk, D. (2024). A revised Loeb of Historia Augusta - (D. Magie, D. Rohrbacher, Eds. & Trans.), Historia Augusta, Volume I (Loeb Classical Library 139). Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press. The Classical Review, 74(1), 121-124.Dan_AudioFile. (2022). Football-match_Cheering_Large-crowd_Ambience.stereo.wav. Retrieved from https://freesound.org/people/Dan_AudioFile/sounds/654085/Dio, C., Cary, E., & Foster, H. B. (1917). Roman History: Volume VI, Books 51-55.FunWithSound. (2017). Applause 4.mp3. Retrieved from https://freesound.org/people/FunWithSound/sounds/381358/Giovannitp. (2015). Horse and chariot 30 sec.mp3. Retrieved from https://freesound.org/people/giovannitp/sounds/271060/Herodian. (n.d.). History of the Empire, Volume I: Books 1-4.Jakobthiesen. (2013). Ext Large Crowd at Sunnyside Pool.WAV. Retrieved from https://freesound.org/people/jakobthiesen/sounds/194865/Kreaton. (2008). isaapp1.wav. Retrieved from https://freesound.org/people/Kreaton/sounds/61288/Kevp888. (2022). R4_00357_FR_LaughAndCheering.wav. Retrieved from https://freesound.org/people/kevp888/sounds/662101/Lenski, N., & Talbert, R. J. A. (2012). From Village to Empire: A History of Rome from Earliest Times to the End of the Western Empire. New York.Nicholls, M. (2019). Galen and the Last Days of Commodus: Galen's Treatise Περὶ Ἀλυπίας (De indolentia) in Context, 245.WebbFilmsUK. (2013). Marching 2.wav. Retrieved from https://freesound.org/people/WebbFilmsUK/sounds/200323/ Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Encounter series by D.M. Griffin looks at four women who each had a brief encounter with Jesus and its profound effect on their lives. The final book, Return of the Son just released. Listen in to see what you'll find in the covers of this Biblical fiction novel.  note: links may be affiliate links that provide me with a small commission at no extra expense to you.  Have you ever wondered who the "Widow of Naim" might have been?  Griffin takes a look at what could have led up to the heartbreaking moment that led to one of Jesus' encounters with broken people.    Don't miss her first episode HERE. Return of the Son by D. M. Griffin Her life was perfect. At least her childhood was. Eve never wanted anything except her father's presence. As a prominent advisor to the evil King Herod, Eve's father was split between his duties to the king and his duties as the only living parent for his daughter. With no heir to claim his family's land, Eve's father did what any loving father would do. He arranged for her betrothal. But this wasn't just any betrothal. Her potential husband was related to the king she despised. With a rough marital journey ahead of her, she tenuously clings to the promises of God. Not sharing her father's enthusiasm or respect for the Herodian dynasty, Eve acted like the spoiled child she was upon first meeting her betrothed. With faulty expectations and prejudiced opinions, she did what she could to ruin the marriage before it began. It wasn't until it was almost too late that Eve's eyes were open and she saw the opportunity to experience love for the divine intervention that it was. Fraught with political intrigue and personal challenges, would Eve be able to fully surrender to the life God wanted her to live by loving a man she thought she could never love? When that man's shadows chase the family into the future, would Eve's son pay the ultimate price? Or would God intervene there too? Could He? Only a single, unforeseen encounter could answer Eve's impossible question. Does love truly conquer death?  Learn more about Demi on her  WEBSITE and follow her on GoodReads and BookBub. Like to listen on the go? You can find Because Fiction Podcast at: Apple  Castbox  Google Play Libsyn  RSS Spotify Amazon and more!

Welcome to the Maccabean Revolt period! Jeff Cavins joins Fr. Mike to introduce the tenth biblical period in our journey, which begins with the Greek oppression of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes, and ends with Herodian rule of the Holy Land. Jeff and Fr. Mike walk us through the key events of this period, highlighting the zealous response of the Maccabean family, the celebration of Hanukkah, and the heroic martyrdom of Jews who would not betray their religious identity in the midst of persecution. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/bibleinayear. Please note: The Bible contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

In this message, Pastor Lewis teaches why Jesus warned his disciples of the leaven of political leaders. Support This Ministry

(1:47) Bible Study: Mk 6:17-29 Father talks about the Herodian family. They were not good people. (18:25) Break 1 (19:40) Letters: Do you need to go through Chemotherapy in order to preserve your life, what is penance really and why is the Catholic 10 commandments different from the Protestant 10 commandments? Father answers all of this questions and more. (35:34) Break 2 (36:11) Word of the Day: Delighted (38:49) Phones: Cathy - call no man your father. Can you explain more? Jennifer - My family rejects Vatican 2. How do I explain this to them? Roe - Can a minister to the homebound bring multiple hosts to someone? Do they really stay consecrated the whole time?

In this episode: Herod, Western Wall, Herodian bricks, 3 Kings, Wise Men, Persian priesthood, Rab Mag, Daniel, Babylonian, Seutonius, King of the Jews, Star of Bethlehem, shekinah, gold frankincense myrrh, Kingship, Divinity, sacrifice. Become a supporter and get unlimited questions turned into podcasts at: www.patreon.com/theologyandapologetics YouTube Channel: Theology & Apologetics www.youtube.com/channel/UChoiZ46uyDZZY7W1K9UGAnw Instagram: www.instagram.com/theology.apologetics Websites: www.ezrafoundation.org www.theologyandapologetics.com

In A History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and Beyond (T&T Clark, 2019), Kenneth Atkinson tells the exciting story of the nine decades of the Hasmonean rule of Judea (152 - 63 BCE) by going beyond the accounts of the Hasmoneans in Josephus in order to bring together new evidence to reconstruct how the Hasmonean family transformed their kingdom into a state that lasted until the arrival of the Romans. Atkinson reconstructs the relationships between the Hasmonean state and the rulers of the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic Empires, the Itureans, the Nabateans, the Parthians, the Armenians, the Cappadocians, and the Roman Republic. He draws on a variety of previously unused sources, including papyrological documentation, inscriptions, archaeological evidence, numismatics, Dead Sea Scrolls, pseudepigrapha, and textual sources from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine periods. Atkinson also explores how Josephus's political and social situation in Flavian Rome affected his accounts of the Hasmoneans and why any study of the Hasmonean state must go beyond Josephus to gain a full appreciation of this unique historical period that shaped Second Temple Judaism, and created the conditions for the rise of the Herodian dynasty and the emergence of Christianity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In A History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and Beyond (T&T Clark, 2019), Kenneth Atkinson tells the exciting story of the nine decades of the Hasmonean rule of Judea (152 - 63 BCE) by going beyond the accounts of the Hasmoneans in Josephus in order to bring together new evidence to reconstruct how the Hasmonean family transformed their kingdom into a state that lasted until the arrival of the Romans. Atkinson reconstructs the relationships between the Hasmonean state and the rulers of the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic Empires, the Itureans, the Nabateans, the Parthians, the Armenians, the Cappadocians, and the Roman Republic. He draws on a variety of previously unused sources, including papyrological documentation, inscriptions, archaeological evidence, numismatics, Dead Sea Scrolls, pseudepigrapha, and textual sources from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine periods. Atkinson also explores how Josephus's political and social situation in Flavian Rome affected his accounts of the Hasmoneans and why any study of the Hasmonean state must go beyond Josephus to gain a full appreciation of this unique historical period that shaped Second Temple Judaism, and created the conditions for the rise of the Herodian dynasty and the emergence of Christianity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

In A History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and Beyond (T&T Clark, 2019), Kenneth Atkinson tells the exciting story of the nine decades of the Hasmonean rule of Judea (152 - 63 BCE) by going beyond the accounts of the Hasmoneans in Josephus in order to bring together new evidence to reconstruct how the Hasmonean family transformed their kingdom into a state that lasted until the arrival of the Romans. Atkinson reconstructs the relationships between the Hasmonean state and the rulers of the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic Empires, the Itureans, the Nabateans, the Parthians, the Armenians, the Cappadocians, and the Roman Republic. He draws on a variety of previously unused sources, including papyrological documentation, inscriptions, archaeological evidence, numismatics, Dead Sea Scrolls, pseudepigrapha, and textual sources from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine periods. Atkinson also explores how Josephus's political and social situation in Flavian Rome affected his accounts of the Hasmoneans and why any study of the Hasmonean state must go beyond Josephus to gain a full appreciation of this unique historical period that shaped Second Temple Judaism, and created the conditions for the rise of the Herodian dynasty and the emergence of Christianity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

In A History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and Beyond (T&T Clark, 2019), Kenneth Atkinson tells the exciting story of the nine decades of the Hasmonean rule of Judea (152 - 63 BCE) by going beyond the accounts of the Hasmoneans in Josephus in order to bring together new evidence to reconstruct how the Hasmonean family transformed their kingdom into a state that lasted until the arrival of the Romans. Atkinson reconstructs the relationships between the Hasmonean state and the rulers of the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic Empires, the Itureans, the Nabateans, the Parthians, the Armenians, the Cappadocians, and the Roman Republic. He draws on a variety of previously unused sources, including papyrological documentation, inscriptions, archaeological evidence, numismatics, Dead Sea Scrolls, pseudepigrapha, and textual sources from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine periods. Atkinson also explores how Josephus's political and social situation in Flavian Rome affected his accounts of the Hasmoneans and why any study of the Hasmonean state must go beyond Josephus to gain a full appreciation of this unique historical period that shaped Second Temple Judaism, and created the conditions for the rise of the Herodian dynasty and the emergence of Christianity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

In A History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and Beyond (T&T Clark, 2019), Kenneth Atkinson tells the exciting story of the nine decades of the Hasmonean rule of Judea (152 - 63 BCE) by going beyond the accounts of the Hasmoneans in Josephus in order to bring together new evidence to reconstruct how the Hasmonean family transformed their kingdom into a state that lasted until the arrival of the Romans. Atkinson reconstructs the relationships between the Hasmonean state and the rulers of the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic Empires, the Itureans, the Nabateans, the Parthians, the Armenians, the Cappadocians, and the Roman Republic. He draws on a variety of previously unused sources, including papyrological documentation, inscriptions, archaeological evidence, numismatics, Dead Sea Scrolls, pseudepigrapha, and textual sources from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine periods. Atkinson also explores how Josephus's political and social situation in Flavian Rome affected his accounts of the Hasmoneans and why any study of the Hasmonean state must go beyond Josephus to gain a full appreciation of this unique historical period that shaped Second Temple Judaism, and created the conditions for the rise of the Herodian dynasty and the emergence of Christianity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In A History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and Beyond (T&T Clark, 2019), Kenneth Atkinson tells the exciting story of the nine decades of the Hasmonean rule of Judea (152 - 63 BCE) by going beyond the accounts of the Hasmoneans in Josephus in order to bring together new evidence to reconstruct how the Hasmonean family transformed their kingdom into a state that lasted until the arrival of the Romans. Atkinson reconstructs the relationships between the Hasmonean state and the rulers of the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic Empires, the Itureans, the Nabateans, the Parthians, the Armenians, the Cappadocians, and the Roman Republic. He draws on a variety of previously unused sources, including papyrological documentation, inscriptions, archaeological evidence, numismatics, Dead Sea Scrolls, pseudepigrapha, and textual sources from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine periods. Atkinson also explores how Josephus's political and social situation in Flavian Rome affected his accounts of the Hasmoneans and why any study of the Hasmonean state must go beyond Josephus to gain a full appreciation of this unique historical period that shaped Second Temple Judaism, and created the conditions for the rise of the Herodian dynasty and the emergence of Christianity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biblical-studies

Daily Dose of Hope July 25, 2024 Day 5 of Week 17   Scripture:  I Samuel 17; I Chronicles 2; Acts 12   Dear friends, welcome back to the Daily Dose of Hope!  This is the day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it!  Let's also rejoice in God's Word and all we are learning.  With that, we head into our Scripture for today.   We start with I Samuel 17.  Today, we read the classic story of David and Goliath.  For those of us who grew up going to Sunday School, we know this one by heart.  Young, naïve David triumphs over the giant Philistine.  But as I read it again today, I was reminded of something.  This is not a story of human courage and power but rather incredible faith and trust in a powerful God.  Goliath was truly a giant.  He measured over 9 feet tall and was broad and strong.  His size alone would have been quite overwhelming for the Hebrew army but he also had state of the art armor and weaponry.  Goliath was a soldier who fought to the death in one on one combat.  He would fight against a single man from an enemy army and the solider who was left standing won the battle for his people.  The dead soldier's people would become subjects of the victorious nation.  There isn't much evidence that the Israelite army did much one to one combat; it was typically the whole army fighting together. This was new to them and they were scared to death. No one dared to face Goliath. David arrives at the battle lines to bring food provisions to the soldiers.  His three oldest brothers were fighting with King Saul.  We don't know why David wasn't on the battle lines, possibly because he needed to stay at home and help his father.  He arrives in time to hear Goliath taunting the Israeli soldiers, who were quite fearful.  David was obviously disturbed that Goliath could so boldly insult the Hebrew army, the army of the living God.  He starts to ask questions, greatly annoying his older brother who, possibly out of fear himself, says some pretty awful and untrue things about David.  David is unrelenting.  His offer to fight Goliath is initially refused by King Saul.  But David is determined.  Finally, Saul agrees and even offers David his own armor and sword.  Interestingly, David clothing himself in the royal armor is a foreshadowing of what is to come: David will soon be king.  But David quickly abandons the royal armor; he wasn't used to fighting in such things.  He dressed like a shepherd would have, using what seemed normal and natural to him–a stone and a sling.  Just so you know, the stones were not little pebbles but would have been about the size of a tennis ball.  Nothing to laugh at for sure.  But what's most impressive to me is that David understood this was a theological battle.  It wasn't just him fighting against this Philistine.  This was God's battle.  When the Israelites went to war, it was supposed to be a spiritual battle.  They represented Yahweh, the one true God.  For that reason, they were only to go to war with God's blessings and they were to be ritually pure.  David was making a point.  This wasn't about him.  God would fight the battle for him.  Of course, we know the rest of the story.  Goliath is defeated.  I'm hoping none of us have to be engaged in any kind of one of one combat.  But we certainly have battles to fight.  What might it be like to allow God to fight our battles for us?  How would that change our perspective?  How would it change how we handle the situation, the words we speak, and our demeanor with the people involved?  Spend some time today thinking about your current battles.  Consider giving them to God, for real, and not taking them back. Let's move on to I Chronicles 2.  From this chapter through chapter nine, we will be encountering more genealogy and lists of people.  Why so many lists?  I did a bit of a deep dive into the purpose of the genealogy, specifically in I Chronicles.  The author did this very intentionally.  He wanted to create a monument of sorts of those from Israel who died before the exile.  Apparently, family histories in that time and culture were really only provided for the elite.  I think the author knew that all of these individuals and families were important to Israel and important to God.  He wanted them to be remembered.  I can't help but think about all the monuments and memorials I've visited over the years.  One that always brings me to tears is the Vietnam Wall in Washington D.C.  The pure number of names is overwhelming.  And then there are those who find a loved one or relative and take pictures or make an imprint onto paper of the name they came to see.  It gives their lives meaning.  It helps us remember.  It's critical to our history.  In many ways, I think these first few chapters in I Chronicles are similar.  These men deserve to have their names written, read, and remembered.  We will close today with our New Testament reading from Acts 12.  Things are getting rough for Peter and the Christians.  Persecution is increasing.  Herod is getting especially agitated and throws Peter in prison.  I want to talk about the miracle of Peter being released but first let's discuss the Herod dynasty because I think that's important.  The Herodians were given power of the region of Judea by the Romans.  While they were brutal and power-hungry, they did consider themselves to be Jews.  This Herod from Acts 12 is Herod Agrippa I.  His grandfather was Herod the Great; he was the Herod who called for the killing of the Jewish baby boys after Jesus' birth.  He was the nephew of Herod Antipas, who ordered the beheading of John the Baptist and to whom Jesus was brought.  All of these Herodian kings were insecure and felt easily threatened by those who criticized them or their way of life.  Thus, this Herod was persecuting Christians and had already executed James, the brother of John.  Peter is arrested and thrown in prison with many, many layers of security.  But no soldiers or shackles can stop God!  He sends an angel who frees Peter and leads him out of the prison to a home where many believers were meeting.  This is just the beginning of the miracles God is going to do. Finally, let's talk about Herod's death.  After securing some kind of peace deal, King Herod stands before the people and gives his royal address.  The people go wild!  They begin to say this is the voice of a god, not a man.  And insecure Herod just soaks it up.  But God is having none of it, and he strikes him down dead.  Y'all, arrogance does not pay.  God calls his people to be humble.  All glory and honor belong to God.  Yes, there are times in which we can be appropriately proud but we have to be very, very careful.  The way of Christ is always humility. Blessings, Pastor Vicki    

#Indiana Hoenlein and the Lost Herodian Quarter of Jerusalem. Malcolm Hoenlein @Conf_of_pres @mhoenlein1j @ThadMcCotter @theamgreatness https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/05/30/a-blast-from-the-past-unveiling-jerusalems-priestly-neighborhood-from-herodian-era/ 1898 Old City Jerusalem

In our study in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 6, we explore the story of King Herod and John the Baptist. Beginning with verse 14, we learn how Herod, upon hearing about the miracles performed by Jesus and His disciples, becomes convinced that John the Baptist has risen from the dead. This episode details the complex relationship between Herod, John the Baptist, and Herodias, leading to John's imprisonment and eventual execution. The historical context about the Herodian dynasty and their notorious immorality, paints a vivid picture of the political and social dynamics at play. Discover how John's death marks the end of the Old Testament prophets and an overlap start of the new covenant with Jesus Christ. This is a powerful reminder of the sacrifices made by those who paved the way for the gospel's spread. Join us as we delve into this pivotal moment in biblical history.

From the tabernacle to Herodian times. Thank you for listening! Please leave a 5 star review, share and subscribe!

Hosanna to the Son of David St. Matthew 21:1-43 by William Klock That first Palm Sunday, Jesus made his last trip to Jerusalem for the Passover.  In the little town on the hill opposite the city he made arrangement for a donkey, then he rode down into the valley, back up to the city, and fulfilling the ancient prophecy of Zechariah about a humble king who would come to deliver his people.  You and I know where this story is headed.  Just in case we might have forgotten, the long Palm Sunday Gospel gives us an opportunity not just to remember but to put ourselves in the story of Jesus' arrest, his trial, and his crucifixion.  But the people on that first Palm Sunday had no idea that the story was headed in that direction.  Jesus had put two and two together—or maybe we should say that he'd put Moses and Isaiah or the law and the prophets together—and he knew that somehow he was headed to his death, despite the acclaim of the crowd.  I have to think that there were a few others amongst his people, wise people steeped in Scripture and who had heard Jesus preach, who might have suspected what was coming.  But that Good Friday, that the Cross, were just a few days away, would have been a complete surprise to most.  They had heard Jesus preaching good news to the poor; they had seen him heal the sick, the blind, and the lame; they had seen him cast out demons and raise the dead.  These were “Messiah things”.  And even if Jesus didn't always make a lot of sense, even if he was doing other things that didn't fit the narrative they had in their heads, the Lord, the God of Israel, was clearly with him.  And now, here he was riding into Jerusalem on a donkey just as Zechariah had prophesied.  He had to be the long-awaited King. Jesus' timing was perfect.  There couldn't have been a better time for the King to arrive in Jerusalem.  This was Passover.  This was the annual festival where the Jews not only remembered how the Lord had delivered them from their bondage in Egypt, but it was also the time when they looked forward with hope to the day when the Lord would deliver them again.  The people travelling the road with Jesus were on their way to gather with friends and family to tell the story of Moses and Pharaoh, of the ten plagues, of the angel of death and the Passover lambs, the crossing of the Red Sea, and of the Lord meeting them at last in the wilderness.  They were rehearsing a story over a thousand years old, but it was their story.  This was how they became the Lord's people and how he became their God.  It was a story of deliverance in the past and as they retold it each year they expressed their longing for and their faith in God's deliverance in the future.  And now, in Jesus, they see the King finally arriving, and that meant that the covenant renewal and the Lord's visitation and vindication of his people had to be just around the corner. There were a lot of other stories of deliverance in Israel's history, but as they waved their palm branches that first Palm Sunday, the people had to have in mind the story of Judas Maccabaeus.  Two hundred years earlier, he and his army had marched on Jerusalem.  They defeated their Greek overlords and retook the city.  And after retaking the city, Judas cleansed the temple, which Antiochus, the Greek king, had desecrated.  The people of Jerusalem had greeted Judas Maccabeus with palm branches too.  For about a century the Jews lived in freedom under the Maccabees and many in Jesus' day were looking for a King to come like Judas, to once again drive out the oppressors—and this time the Lord would truly be with and stay with his people.  Finally, he would set the world to rights. But Jesus' procession into Jerusalem wasn't the only one.  Pontius Pilate had his own procession into the city.  He lived in Caesarea, down on the Mediterranean coast, but to keep the peace during the Passover as the city was packed with people, Pilate, the Roman governor marched up to Jerusalem with his soldiers.  Pilate would have arrived from the opposite direction as Jesus.  He might have arrived the day before or later that same day, but it's entirely possible that he and Jesus arrived at the same time, King Jesus representing the Lord, the God of Israel, and Pilate representing the great Caesar.  The people caught on.  They were expecting a showdown.  They saw Jesus on the donkey and they remembered Zechariah's prophecy of the coming King.  And in thinking of the King they would certainly also have remembered other prophecies about the King.  They sang psalms on the road to Jerusalem and may have been singing some of the royal psalms about the King coming to conquer the nations, breaking them like a rod of iron and smashing them like pottery.  Jesus looked pretty humble and peaceful now, but many of the people expected him to throw off the humble itinerant preacher disguise to rise up like another Judas Maccabeus.  He would drive out the Romans, the corrupt Herodian sell-outs, and the corrupt priests who governed the temple.  And then he would rule like David and Solomon. So we can imagine the excitement of the people when Jesus headed straight for the temple.  Our lesson from Matthew 21 in the Liturgy of the Palms stops just short of that bit of the story.  Jesus marched into the temple and promptly set about upsetting everything.  He drove out the very people who sold animals and made the sacrificial system possible.  Jesus' problem wasn't so much with the buying and selling.  Sacrifices required pure animals.  Carrying animals all the way from places like Galilee was impractical.  They could escape, get injured, or die on the journey.  The people selling animals were offering a needed service and there was nothing wrong with making a profit—they had to feed their families like everyone else.  The money changers were necessary too, because the temple had its own currency.  No, quoting Jeremiah 7:11, Jesus shouted out that they had turned the temple, God's house, into a house of robbers.  When Jeremiah said these words, he was rebuking people who thought that they could find comfort in God's house while continuing unrepentant in their sin.  By Jesus' time the word for “robber” had taken on added meaning.  The Jews had borrowed the word from Greek and used to refer to violent revolutionaries, like the Zealots, who wanted to overthrow the Romans.  The temple was supposed to be the place where the people came to the Lord in prayer and submitted to his will and his agenda, but instead the people had made it the focal point of their hopes and dreams for violent revolution—of another Maccabean revolt and a violent Messiah like Judas.  And so Jesus did something that disrupted the temple and that stopped the sacrifices.  It was an acted-out prophecy declaring that the temple's days were over and with it the old order.  God was about to do something new.  Jesus had been teaching this all along—and acting it out as well.  Whenever Jesus healed and forgave and declared people clean and bypassed the temple and the system of ritual and purity, he was sending the message that the temple's days were coming to an end and with it the days of the priesthood and the sacrifices.  The Lord, in Jesus, was about to do something new, to offer a better sacrifice, to build a better temple, to make a better priesthood—all centred in him.  So Jesus does it again here in Matthew 21.  Jesus brought the sacrifices in the temple to a halt and then, Matthew says, the blind and the lame came to him and were healed. What kind of King were the people looking for?  Again, they were looking for a warrior like Judas Maccabaeus, but Jesus arrived on a donkey and wept over the city because it did not know the way of peace.  They were looking for a king to come and restore the temple and to once again make it the centre of the world, but Jesus, instead, acted out a prophecy of its destruction and declared that he would tear it down.  They looked for another king like David who would vanquish Israel's enemies, but Jesus instead taught of a king whom the people would reject and murder. Jesus went back to the temple the next day to teach.  Matthew says that the chief priests and elders confronted him to ask by what authority he said and did these things and Jesus threw their question back at them.  They were afraid to answer.  If they admitted that the Lord truly was behind Jesus they'd have to answer for rejecting him.  If they denied it they would lose the respect and obedience of the common people who loved Jesus and, even if they didn't understand him very well, they could see the obvious: God was at work through him.  So the priests and elders simply refused to answer.  They were more concerned with their position of authority than with the truth. Jesus responded with a parable.  This is what he said: “Once upon a time there was a householder who planted a vineyard, built a wall for it, dug out a winepress in it, and built a tower.  Then he rented it out to tenant farmers and went away on a journey.  When harvest time arrived, he sent his slaves to the farmers to collect his produce.  The farmers seized his slaves; they beat one, killed another, and stoned another.  Again he sent other slaves, more than before, and they treated them in the same way.  Finally he sent his son to them.  “They'll respect my son,” he said.  But the farmers saw the son.  “This fellow's the heir!' they said among themselves.  ‘Come on, let's kill him, and then we can take over the property!'  So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him.  Now then: when the vineyard-owner returns, what will he do to those farmers?”  “He'll kill them brutally, the wretches!” they said.  “And he'll lease the vineyard to other farmers who'll give him the produce at the right time.”   “Did you never read what the Bible says?” said Jesus to them: “‘The stone the builders threw away Is now atop the corner; It's from the Lord, all this, they say And we looked on in wonder.'”   “So then let me tell you this: God's kingdom is going to be taken away from you and given to a nation that will produce the goods.  Anyone who falls on this stone will be smashed to pieces, and anyone it falls on will be crushed.” (Matthew 21:33-44 KNT) This time the priests and elders understood.  We know they understood because Matthew goes on to say that they were angry because they knew the parable was about them.  They would have arrested him then and there if it hadn't been for the crowds.  You see, they knew a similar story that Isaiah had told long before.  In Isaiah 5 the story is about a man who lovingly planted a vineyard, but no matter how well he cared for it, it produced only worthless wild grapes.  In the end the man was forced to tear down the wall protecting the vineyard and to let the wild retake it.  Isaiah himself had said that the man was the Lord and the vineyard was Israel.  But, now, in Jesus' version of the story he makes it plain that the problem isn't just the vines producing bad fruit.  It's the tenant farmers refusing to acknowledge the vineyard's real owner: the Lord. Jesus stresses that they've had warning after warning.  The Lord sent his prophets, but they rejected and murdered them.  Now he's sent his own Son whom they're about to reject and murder too.  This is one of the most explicit statements Jesus makes about both his relation to the Lord and about his mission, his vocation to bear himself the hatred and violence of the very people to whom he was sent.  And here Jesus reminds us of the problem.  Again, the people were looking for a David or a Judas Maccabaeus.  They were looking for a king who could overpower Caesar.  But the King who came will, instead, allow the violence of his own people and of Caesar to crush him.  Somehow, Jesus is saying, God's plan will be worked out by everything going terribly wrong in order to make everything perfectly right.  The King will let evil—will let sin and death—do their absolute worst to him.  He will be rejected and scorned.  But the stone that the builders rejected will somehow end up becoming the cornerstone of a new and better temple.  This is where Holy Week is headed.  It's not until Easter, when we find the empty tomb and meet the risen Jesus, that it all makes sense. In the meantime, we need to ask which King we are following.  The world is a mess.  Violence is everywhere.  Strife is everywhere.  Poverty is everywhere.  And the very moment it seems one situation is improving, things fall apart somewhere else.  The things the world looks to for hope never seem to pan out—often they just make things worse.  Brothers and Sisters, we need to ask: In what or in whom do we place our hope for peace and a better world?  Caesar has failed over and over and over.  Many of us place our hope in mammon, but mammon's track record is no better.  We need to declare with Solomon, “Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to the royal son!  May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice!” (Psalm 72:1-2). But then we need to ask a more personal question.  The Palm Sunday crowd was fickle, hailing Jesus as King on Sunday and crying out for his crucifixion on Friday, but they weren't wrong in their hope for the Lord's deliverance of his people.  They longed to see God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.  They hoped for the justice and peace of God to set his Creation to rights.  Where they were wrong was in missing, in failing to see the means by which Jesus would usher in God's kingdom, not by violence, but by giving himself.  Brothers and Sisters, Jesus calls us to follow him on the road through Holy Week—this road of rejection, and of suffering, and even death.  He demands our all.  That's what it means to repent—to turn aside from everything that is not him, to turn aside from every source of security that is not him, and to turn aside from every plan that is not his and to give our lives to the task of proclaiming this King, who gave his life for the sake of his enemies.  It means that we give our whole selves in faith and in hope to make his kingdom known on earth as it is in heaven in practical and tangible ways, that through us, no matter the cost, the world may see his justice and his peace, his mercy and his grace. Let us pray: Almighty and everliving God, in your tender love for mankind you sent your Son our Saviour Jesus Christ to take upon him our nature, and to suffer death upon the cross, giving us the example of his great humility:  Mercifully grant that we may walk in the way of his suffering, and also share in his resurrection; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.

Appointed by the Romans as king of Judaea and thanks to his feature in the Gospel of Matthew, King Herod ‘the Great' is one of the infamous figures from the whole of Ancient history. So what do we know about this ancient near eastern ruler, who in his lifetime had contacts with a series of ‘goliath' figures from the ancient Mediterranean World: from Caesar to Cleopatra and from Marc Antony to Augustus. Dan Snow's History Hit podcast available at https://amzn.to/48HlmtH  Books by Seth Schwartz available at https://amzn.to/49US5vJ WELCOME to our newest Patreon members Leslie, Dennis, Laura, Jack, and Kate at https://patreon.com/markvinet where you can get exclusive access to Bonus episodes, Ad-Free content, Extra materials, when joining our growing community.  SUPPORT this series by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM (Amazon gives us credit at no extra charge to you). It costs you nothing to shop using this FREE store entry link and by doing so encourages & helps us create more quality content. Thanks! Mark Vinet's HISTORY OF NORTH AMERICA podcast: www.parthenonpodcast.com/history-of-north-america                                                  Mark's TIMELINE video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels  Twitter: https://twitter.com/HistoricalJesu   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9  YouTube Podcast Playlist: https://www.bit.ly/34tBizu  TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@historyofnorthamerica  Books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM  Linktree: https://linktr.ee/WadeOrganization                                                                Credit: Dan Snow's History Hit podcast (Episode 1337: King Herod with Seth Schwartz, professor of Classical Jewish Civilization at New York City's Columbia University). Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How did the many rituals and traditions of Judaism develop in the centuries prior to Jesus' birth? Listen to this message to hear a detailed history of the period which included the Maccabean Revolt and the rise of the Herodian dynasties. See the key sects of the Scribes', Pharisees', and Sadducees' origins and how this led to a belief that righteousness could be achieved by one's own good deeds. Appreciate how Paul deftly debunks this belief.

01/07/24 In an era of Herodian power-grabbing and Religious lethargy, we have an opportunity to reclaim the joy and awe of those who move towards Jesus in humble worship.

Absolutely incredible find! Thanks for listening! Please leave a 5 star review, share and subscribe!

Scripture Reading: Acts 3 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time for prayer, at three o'clock in the afternoon. 2 And a man lame from birth was being carried up, who was placed at the temple gate called “the Beautiful Gate” every day so he could beg for money from those going into the temple courts. 3 When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple courts, he asked them for money. 4 Peter looked directly at him (as did John) and said, “Look at us!” 5 So the lame man paid attention to them, expecting to receive something from them. 6 But Peter said, “I have no silver or gold, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, stand up and walk!” 7 Then Peter took hold of him by the right hand and raised him up, and at once the man's feet and ankles were made strong. 8 He jumped up, stood and began walking around, and he entered the temple courts with them, walking and leaping and praising God. 9 All the people saw him walking and praising God, 10 and they recognized him as the man who used to sit and ask for donations at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, and they were filled with astonishment and amazement at what had happened to him.11 While the man was hanging on to Peter and John, all the people, completely astounded, ran together to them in the covered walkway called Solomon's Portico. 12 When Peter saw this, he declared to the people, “Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this? Why do you stare at us as if we had made this man walk by our own power or piety? 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate after he had decided to release him. 14 But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a man who was a murderer be released to you. 15 You killed the Originator of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this fact we are witnesses! 16 And on the basis of faith in Jesus' name, his very name has made this man—whom you see and know—strong. The faith that is through Jesus has given him this complete health in the presence of you all. 17 And now, brothers, I know you acted in ignorance, as your rulers did too. 18 But the things God foretold long ago through all the prophets—that his Christ would suffer—he has fulfilled in this way. 19 Therefore repent and turn back so that your sins may be wiped out, 20 so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and so that he may send the Messiah appointed for you—that is, Jesus. 21 This one heaven must receive until the time all things are restored, which God declared from times long ago through his holy prophets. 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you. 23 Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.' 24 And all the prophets, from Samuel and those who followed him, have spoken about and announced these days. 25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your ancestors, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed.' 26 God raised up his servant and sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each one of you from your iniquities.”Main ThemesThe MiracleThe SettingWe learn in chapter 2 that believers pray daily in the temple. (This means they prayed in the temple courts, not literally inside the temple.) So, chapter 3 opens with a predictable scene—Peter and John find themselves going to the temple to pray (3:1). We can safely assume they were going to participate in a corporate prayer meeting (as opposed to a time of personal prayer).We are aware that at some point synagogues established three prayer times during the day. We have evidence from early Christian writers that Christians continued this practice for a while. Even in Acts we read of three times of prayer: 9:00 AM (Acts 2:15), noon (Acts 10:9), and 3:00 PM (Acts 3:1). There is some doubt that the synagogue tradition was firmly in place at the time of Acts chapter 3, but most agree that was the case.We might ask ourselves: What did these times of corporate prayer look like? It may have included corporate singing of Psalms and other worship, a person leading everyone in prayer, and everyone praying differently but simultaneously.We might also ask ourselves: How long did the miracle and Peter's preaching (which we are about to discuss) take? We learn at the beginning of chapter 4 that Peter and John are arrested towards evening, and recall that Peter and John head towards the temple around 3 PM. So, the miracle and subsequent preaching probably lasted about 3 hours. Although this may be obvious to the reader already, we should note that the speeches we read in Acts are obviously summaries. Luke records the main points made by Peter.The Lame Man and the GateAs the believers head to the temple to pray, they run across a lame man who was placed at the temple gate daily. As a quick historical note, we are not certain at which gate he was placed. Ancient sources do not specify which gate was popularly called “the Beautiful Gate.” We are able to ascertain that it referred to either the Nicanor Gate (which led from the Court of the Gentiles into the Court of Women) or the Shushan Gate at the eastern wall. Since the fifth century, the tradition has been that “the Beautiful Gate” referred to the Shushan Gate, but that tradition may not be reliable.Of more relevance than which gate is being described is the fact that the lame man was at a gate. Because of his defect, he may not have been allowed to go any further into the temple. Also, temple gates were useful for begging since they were frequented by many people. Moreover, one may assume that people at the temple were a more charitable audience than elsewhere. Finally, we must keep in mind the lame man's dismal situation. Begging (considered highly shameful) would have been his only way to provide for himself. There was no other social safety net. As a scholar points out, the poor in ancient cities were “ill-fed, housed in slums or not at all, ravaged by sickness,” and with little hope of social betterment.The ExchangeThe lame man begins the exchange with the apostles on the basis of his need—he requests money. Truly, he requested alms—money given to the poor as an act of charity—but our translation uses money because the term alms is unfamiliar to current readers. Giving alms was viewed as honorable by Judaism.The lame man's request opens the door for a dramatic demonstration of the gospel. The Old Testament strongly emphasized the charitable treatment of the disabled. Consider, for example:You must not curse a deaf person or put a stumbling block in front of a blind person. You must fear your God; I am the Lord. Leviticus 19:14“Cursed is the one who misleads a blind person on the road.” Then all the people will say, “Amen!” Deuteronomy 27:18Like I have pointed out many times before, the gospels are replete with commands to help the poor.Most importantly, according to the Old Testament, healing of the sick would be a sign of the messianic era. Consider Isaiah:Tell those who panic, “Be strong! Do not fear! Look, your God comes to avenge; with divine retribution he comes to deliver you.” Then blind eyes will open, deaf ears will hear. Then the lame will leap like a deer, the mute tongue will shout for joy; for water will burst forth in the wilderness, streams in the arid rift valley. Isaiah 35:4-6)In the Old Testament, the lame also work as a type for the mistreated people of God:Look, at that time I will deal with those who mistreated you. I will rescue the lame sheep and gather together the scattered sheep. I will take away their humiliation and make the whole earth admire and respect them. Zephaniah 3:19So, Peter healing a lame man works on a literal level—it is an astonishing miracle that validates his credentials as one sent by God—and on a narrative level—the story of redemption has reached the messianic era in which the people of God will be gathered.The Disclaimer—No MoneyUpon the lame man's request, Peter and John clarify that they do not have any money. (The phrase “silver and gold” simply means money, “minted coins.”) Although this is nothing but a footnote in the story, we should notice that as the believers shared all their possessions with one another (see chapter 2), the apostles do not seem to have been enriched. Also, this distinguishes Peter and John from magicians of that time, who took payment for their services.The MiracleJesus' NamePeter begins the miracle by giving credit to Jesus Christ. Jesus's name is a key element that recurs throughout this section. It is repeated many times in chapter 3, and its mention continues into chapter 4. This leaves no doubt that the apostles are acting only as agents for the one who sent them—Jesus.We should notice that Peter specifies that he speaks of Jesus “the Nazarene.” This shows a reference to a real, historical figure, and it operates as defiance to popular expectations of greatness. Being from Nazareth was certainly nothing to brag about.How should we understand the use of Jesus' name? For example, in the context of prayer, calling God's name generally means one is addressing God. For example:Now Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he stopped, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.” 2 So he said to them, “When you pray, say: “‘Father, may your name be honored; may your kingdom come. . . .” Luke 11:1-2But in prayer, one is also calling on the Lord himself to act. Consider how the Lord's prayer continues:Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And do not lead us into temptation. Luke 11:3-4Invocations of God's name could be directed at people or at least with people as the intended audience to prove who is acting. Consider Elijah challenging the prophets of Baal:“Then you will invoke the name of your god, and I will invoke the name of the Lord. The god who responds with fire will demonstrate that he is the true God.” All the people responded, “This will be a fair test.” 1 Kings 18Consider also David's blessing of the people of God in the name of the Lord. This probably means he was calling on the Lord to the bless them.When David finished offering burnt sacrifices and peace offerings, he pronounced a blessing over the people in the Lord's name. 1 Chronicles 16:2So, when Peter asks the lame man to walk “in the name of Jesus Christ,” he may be pointing to who is doing the miracle.We could also understand calling on the Lord's name slightly differently. Both in Jewish and Gentile tradition, we can find brokers (i.e., representatives or messengers) using the name of their patron to denote on whose authority they speak or act. So, to say “in the name of Jesus Christ” is to say, “as a representative of Jesus Christ.” We find this (or a very similar) use of the expression in the Gospel of John when praying in Jesus' name (John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23-24). In John, praying “in one's name” evokes praying “on the merits of,” or because of, another's status before the one entreated (much like Israel seeking favor before God on account of their ancestors' favor).Notice that under either interpretation of using the Lord's name, it is Jesus or through the power of Jesus that the miracle happens. The difference is whether the apostle works as an announcer of what Jesus is doing or as the agent through whom Jesus acts.We should also notice that Peter does not use a particular ritual. For pagans, God's favor could be sought by using very specific rituals that needed perfect execution. Jewish ritual was less particular, but correctly implementing the ritual remained important, leading to conflicts between, for example, Pharisees and Sadducees. Peter also does not employ techniques or ingredients that would lend themselves to be interpreted as magic. The only ingredient, so to speak, is the power and authority of Jesus.The HealingPeter clasps the lame man's right hand—typically a sign of agreement or covenant in the ancient world. Given the man's low social status, this denotes acceptance and kindness on Peter's part. Peter helps him up.The miracle is emphatically evident. The man jumps up and immediately walks. Then we are told repeatedly that he “walks around,” walks and leaps,” and all saw him “walking.” The miracle works as a sign that draws attention to the message about to be preached.Why is the miracle so effective? Those at the temple recognized this man as the one “who used to sit and ask for donations.” Since he had been lame from birth, we can conclude he had been placed there daily for a very long time.Moreover, if we are correct in concluding that the lame man could venture no further into the temple due to his disability, the fact that the man enters the temple courts to praise God is significant. His barrier to experience God has been removed by the power and grace of Jesus.The SpeechThe SettingPetter delivers his speech at Solomon's Portico. It was a long outdoor hallway supported by pillars on the east of a pre-Herodian structure, which overlooked the steep Kidron Valley. Apparently Solomon's Portico was a traditional place for Christians to meet and preach; we read about it in Acts (Acts 3:11; 5:12) and in John 10:23.The MessageWhodunit?Peter begins his sermon by correcting an apparent misunderstanding by the crowd. He makes clear that the cause of the healing is Jesus, not himself.Wonder-workers were common at the time, and they were often understood as sorcerers. Clarifying that Jesus was the source of the miracle, along with other passages in Acts (e.g., Acts 8:7-13, 18-24; 19:11-20) work as an antimagical apologetics. These are miracles done by God, Peter is pointing out, not magical works done by Peter's power or cunning. Moreover, Peter is separating himself from certain Jewish traditions that held holy men had power to make certain things happen. (Pagans had a similar notion, believing that piety could lead to spiritual power. For example, Romans believed that their sacrifices could expiate the gods and that their continued worship could even make the gods embarrassed to continue in anger against Rome.)Unlike a sorcerer or a man acting by his own piety-fueled power, Peter points to Jesus and immediately says the following::The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate after he had decided to release him.In other words, the main proposition of the speech is that the God of Israel who acted to resurrect Jesus is continuing to act.The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” was a familiar Jewish expression, derived from the biblical revelation to Moses recorded in the book of Exodus. It appears multiple times in Exodus and the Old Testament, but probably the most memorable mention is in the scene of the burning bush.Now Moses was shepherding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to the mountain of God, to Horeb. The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within a bush. He looked, and the bush was ablaze with fire, but it was not being consumed! So Moses thought, “I will turn aside to see this amazing sight. Why does the bush not burn up?” When the Lord saw that he had turned aside to look, God called to him from within the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.” God said, “Do not approach any closer! Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” He added, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. Exodus 3:1-6This title for God was common in Jesus' time, appearing in Jewish prayers and benedictions, making it one of the most familiar titles for God. Someone who had read both of Luke's works would remember that Jesus had used this title before—once before. Jesus defended the resurrection of the dead with this very title and the very scene of the burning bush, concluding:But even Moses revealed that the dead are raised in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live before him.” Then some of the experts in the law answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well!” For they did not dare any longer to ask him anything. Luke 20:37-40There seems to be no coincidence that Peter uses that same title for God to preach about restoration as Jesus did to preach about resurrection. The God who demonstrated his faithfulness to the patriarchs in the exodus would be faithful to his promise to raise them from the dead; God demonstrated that faithfulness in raising Jesus from the dead; so, one can expect God to deliver on his promises of restoration as well.The Servant, the Holy and Righteous One, the Originator of LifeBecause I have discussed some of these Old Testament allusions in many occasions, I will provide only a brief summary of what the titles used for Jesus are meant to evoke in the listeners' minds.The term servant along with the theme of glorification almost inarguably points to Isaiah' servant.Look, my servant will succeed! He will be elevated, lifted high, and greatly exalted—(just as many were horrified by the sight of you) he was so disfigured he no longer looked like a man; his form was so marred he no longer looked human—so now he will startle many nations. Kings will be shocked by his exaltation, for they will witness something unannounced to them, and they will understand something they had not heard about. Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the Lord's power revealed through him? He sprouted up like a twig before God, like a root out of parched soil; he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention, no special appearance that we should want to follow him. He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant. But he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain; even though we thought he was being punished, attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed. Isaiah 52:13 – 53-5“The Holy One” was especially a title for God himself in both the Old Testament and in early Judaism. In a context that draws heavily on Isaiah, the “holy one” title could imply deity (“Holy One” appears thirty times in Isaiah, including for God as Israel's savior and “redeemer” in the servant contexts). The title could also function as an acceptable title for one of God's servants when conjoined with “of God.” In the case of Acts 3, that seems like a difficult interpretation to hold.“Righteous one” is not a common expression for Christ later in the New Testament. (Although we see some uses, such as in 1 John 1-2. It says, “But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous One, and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.”) So why is this title for Jesus used in Acts?In Acts, the title of righteous one is used exclusively when preaching to Jerusalem audiences, which is perhaps a clue as to its intended meaning. Calling Jesus the “righteous one” heightens both the contrast with Barabbas the “murderer” and the guilt of those who denied Jesus. It also fits one of Luke's central themes: Jesus was innocent. Moreover, the term “righteous servant” appears in the servant song of Isaiah (Isaiah 53:11), solidifying the connection between the term “servant” and Isaiah's servant.“Prince of life,” “Founder of life,” or as our translation puts it, “Originator of life” is antonomasia—a title that substitutes the name of a person. Examples in other contexts would be referring to Shakespeare as the Bard or to Lebron James as the GOAT.In Peter's speech, we see a recurring contrast between life and death, including between he who raised to life and those who kill. Calling Jesus the Originator of life is a great rhetorical device to emphasize that contrast. Also, a biblically literate listener would probably recall Deuteronomy 30:“Look! I have set before you today life and prosperity on the one hand, and death and disaster on the other. What I am commanding you today is to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to obey his commandments, his statutes, and his ordinances. Then you will live and become numerous and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are about to possess. However, if you turn aside and do not obey, but are lured away to worship and serve other gods, I declare to you this very day that you will certainly perish! You will not extend your time in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess. Today I invoke heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set life and death, blessing and curse, before you. Therefore choose life so that you and your descendants may live! I also call on you to love the Lord your God, to obey him and be loyal to him, for he gives you life and enables you to live continually in the land the Lord promised to give to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Deuteronomy 30:15-20There is much debate about exactly to interpret the word translated as prince, founder, or originator (ἀρχηγός). The term appears frequently in the Septuagint to refer to heads of clans—hence the translations prince and founder. The term could apply to authors or originators of something, or the “initiator” of something. However, for readers steeped more in biblical Greek than in Greek tradition, the image of leadership would be dominant. Jesus is thus the hero leading the way to the historic goal of achieving eternal life, and as such fulfills the promises and inaugurates the opportunity for the eschatological era of blessing. In the words of other New Testament passages, he is the “firstborn” from the dead, who thereby guarantees life to the rest of his people. Perhaps a great translation of ἀρχηγός is “pioneer,” but modern scholars find “pioneer” to be on the list of icky words (for reasons I am sure you could guess).Believe, Repent, and Then . . . The Messiah's ReturnVerses 15 through 21 sounds quite similar to the speech in chapter 2, so I will not discuss them in detail except for the conspicuous differences. By differences, I do not mean inconsistencies. I mean the two speeches are not identical and we learn some distinct information.As in the prior chapter, Peter tells the Jewish audience that they killed Jesus, their divine king sent by God, yet God raised him from the dead, a fact to which the apostles are witnesses. In chapter 2 Peter points to the audience as witnesses of God's miracles (as opposed to the apostles). But in chapter 3 Peter quickly points out that the audience has now witnessed a miracle. The crowd was familiar with the lame man who was healed, making this charge effective. All in all, the setup of the message in chapter 3 is similar to that of chapter 2.The first distinction, albeit in tone and not theology, is in how Peter addresses the crowd's culpability. In chapter 2, Peter emphasizes the guilt of the crowd. In chapter 3, Peter minimizes (although does not remove) their guilt by highlighting their ignorance.Then just like in chapter 2, Peter then clarifies that Jesus' death was according to scripture. Finally, Peter calls the crowd to repentance.The real difference between the two speeches begins in verse 20. What are the fruits of repentance in chapter 2? “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'” (Acts 2:38). Peter also tells them to “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!” (Acts 2:40). In short, the result of repentance is forgiveness of sins, receiving the Holy Spirit, and salvation (which in the context of chapter 2 means avoiding judgment).What are the fruits of repentance in chapter 3? “[S]o that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and so that he may send the Messiah appointed for you—that is, Jesus. This one heaven must receive until the time all things are restored, which God declared from times long ago through his holy prophets” (Acts 3:20b-21). Repentance will be followed by “times of refreshing” or what may also be called restoration; and, once sufficient restoration has occurred (“the time all things are restored”) then Jesus will return.This idea of restoration is found throughout the Old Testament prophets. Perhaps the best known passage is in Ezekiel:“‘I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries; then I will bring you to your land. I will sprinkle you with pure water, and you will be clean from all your impurities. I will purify you from all your idols. I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you; I will take the initiative, and you will obey my statutes and carefully observe my regulations. Then you will live in the land I gave to your fathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God. I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and multiply it; I will not bring a famine on you. I will multiply the fruit of the trees and the produce of the fields, so that you will never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil behavior and your deeds that were not good; you will loathe yourselves on account of your sins and your abominable deeds. Ezekiel 36:24-31Jews during Jesus' day and thereafter linked the idea of turning to God with the restoration of Israel. Many Jewish sources show an expectation that Israel would return to God's law in the last days. Often Jewish teachers, particularly in later rabbinic texts, predicated the end's arrival and Israel's restoration as chronologically contingent on Israel's repentance.Summary and ConclusionsWhat does this tell us about the current age? The opportunity to turn to God is now. The good news is going out to all the nations (see verse 25) that the Lord has already raised the firstborn from the dead. Anyone who trusts the “Pioneer of life” shall reach the same destination. And, one day, when all the people of God have turned to Him, Jesus will return to judge, to heal, to restore, and to reign a world that will be filled with love, peace, and joy.The concept of restoration and Jesus' return also prompts a few questions. Peter's speech claiming that heaven would receive Jesus until the period of restoration echoes Psalm 110:1, which Peter quoted in chapter 2. The psalm says:Here is the Lord's proclamation to my lord: “Sit down at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” The Lord extends your dominion from Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies. Your people willingly follow you when you go into battle. On the holy hills at sunrise the dew of your youth belongs to you. The Lord makes this promise on oath and will not revoke it: “You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.” O Lord, at your right hand he strikes down kings in the day he unleashes his anger. He executes judgment against the nations. He fills the valleys with corpses; he shatters their heads over the vast battlefield. From the stream along the road he drinks; then he lifts up his head. Psalm 110:1b-7So, will all enemies of Christ be defeated and then Jesus will return? Should we expect the church to advance and (peacefully) conquer all the world, every institution, and every person? Will nearly everyone become a follower of Christ? Some believe this. Other passages in scripture have led most Christian throughout history to temper those expectations, with some taking an opposite, extremely negative view of history's arch. But regardless of how we harmonize scripture, the theme of an advancing church (whether ultimately victorious or not) seems inarguable. Many will come to Christ. The enemies of the church will not prevail against the plan of salvation.The second question we might ask is whether Acts 3 (and other texts, such as Romans 11) means that it is the conversion of Jews (not Gentiles) that will trigger the end—the return of Jesus. Many Christians in the United States hold this view today. Often times, although not always, this view includes the belief that national Israel will be restored and blessed before the final judgment. In other words, that Acts 3 is talking specifically about the ethnic nation of Israel. This partially explains why many conservatives in the United States are committed to supporting the nation of Israel. One may also take a passage like Acts 3 and argue that, for example, Peter seems to intentionally omit the more Israel-centric portions of the Old Testament text he cites, and that at the end of chapter 3 Peter again highlights that the promise of salvation is for all nations. Therefore, restoration involves all the people of God—the Church—and not specifically Jews. (Of course, the arguments for the different theological positions look for evidence all over the Bible. I give examples only from the texts we have recently read so as not to derail our conversation.)So far I have avoided these eschatological topics because people feel very strongly about them. Discussion can easily get heated. My intention behind these brief comments is simply to introduce some of the options available.

rWotD Episode 2392: Sosipater.Welcome to random Wiki of the Day where we read the summary of a random Wikipedia page every day.The random article for Tuesday, 21 November 2023 is Sosipater.Sosipater (Greek: Σωσίπατρος) is a person mentioned in the New Testament, in Romans 16:21. He is probably the same person as Sopater mentioned in Acts 20:4.In church tradition, he is known as Sosipater of Iconium, and is numbered among the Seventy Apostles. St. Sosipater's feast days are on April 28 (Slavic tradition), or 29 (Greek tradition) with St. Jason; November 10 with saints Erastus, Olympas, Herodian, Quartus and Tertius; and January 4 with the Seventy. According to Latin tradition, the disciple of St Paul the Apostle died on the 25th of June in Beroea.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:06 UTC on Tuesday, 21 November 2023.For the full current version of the article, see Sosipater on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm Kendra Neural.

Welcome to the Maccabean Revolt period! Jeff Cavins joins Fr. Mike to introduce the tenth biblical period in our journey, which begins with the Greek oppression of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes, and ends with Herodian rule of the Holy Land. Jeff and Fr. Mike walk us through the key events of this period, highlighting the zealous response of the Maccabean family, the celebration of Hanukkah, and the heroic martyrdom of Jews who would not betray their religious identity in the midst of persecution. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/bibleinayear. Please note: The Bible contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

Chris White discusses the theory that the Solomon's temple (and the Herodian temple) was 600 feet away from where it is currently believed to have been.  

[See below for the written description of this 2007 program.] * Tragic 2020 Update: Considered a solid Christian leader by many thousands of believers (and in many ways beloved by us here at BEL), the founder and host of Stand to Reason, Greg Koukl has tragically stated, beginning at 9:40 into a podcast, that "some same sex couples are fabulous." Please pray for Greg and for the man who phoned in a question, and for all those Greg is not-so-subtly influencing to become moral relativists. Here's what happened... 9:20 A caller asks whether children are better off in foster care or adopted by same sex parents. 9:56 "Some same sex couples are fabulous. Some same sex couples are deplorable. And actually, the same is true for heterosexual couples." Greg then offers the softest possible objection to one of the fiercest moral dangers of our day, which is homosexuality. (For, "In the public square, biblical Christianity and homosexuality are mutually exclusive. One or the other will be in the closet.") He followed that by repeatedly obfuscating with moral relativist utilitarian distinctions about which parents give the "advantage" and which is "better".  Koukl draws false equivalencies between homosexuality and heterosexual singleness, cohabitation, and bad parenting. Regarding same sex parenting, "there are other things [aspects of their parenting] that may be really good... there are a number of factors that are involved here. ... All things being equal I think it is better for heterosexual couples to raise children." 12:24 "A father brings something different to the relationship than a mother does. Period." Koukl puts much more emphasis on practical distinctions than he does on the far greater matter of the utter perversion and rebellion of homosexuality. Greg exhibits more fear about how his audience will view him than he does about the child raised in a dystopian world of normalized homosexuality. "Just to show that I'm not unfairly prejudiced here... I don't believe that single people should adopt." 14:50 "What we want to do is to make decisions based on the ideal." 15:45 "This is why it's hard to make a judgment. Are children in foster care better off [being adopted by] same sex couples or better off staying in foster care. It depends on the individual circumstance. I would rather see a child in a reasonably healthy environment with a same sex couple than in an abusive environment with a heterosexual couple." If that isn't moral relativism, then there is no such thing. 16:13 Constantly equivocating on underlying morality and legitimacy, "The big thing is, what's best for the kid... Heterosexual parents are better than same sex parents, on balance." 17:07 "However if this child had no parent whatsoever and was living in the squalor in the street somewhere..." Talk about situational ethics. Would Greg rather see a child rescued from a volcanic eruption by a human trafficker, than be burned alive? Oh brother. Come on. (Here's an actual example. In our 2007 debate Greg was defending pro-abort Rudi Guiliani, who got 3% of the pimary vote, and Christian listeners applied his arguments to pro-abort Mitt Romney of course, who got 22% of the vote, with pro-abort McCain winning. Regarding Romney, the presidential candidate four years later who regarding an unborn child who might end up being raised by a crack-addicted mother, would be only too happy to support the premptive killing of that baby. Or, for that matter, he supported killing any unborn child for any reason, for Romney is the father of tax-funded late-term abortion on demand.) 18:13 "Heterosexual couples bring something more to the parenting environment than same sex couples bring." 19:05 "You've got to start from the standards and work to the circumstances that you're faced with." Which is exactly the opposite of what Greg had just done in yet another text-book case of moral relativism. * Correction: Bob unintentionally exaggerated Clinton's willingness to support the PBA ban. See the full correction at the end of this show summary. * Christian Leader Koukl Defends Candidate Giuliani: Stu Epperson moderates the debate between Bob Enyart and STR.org's Greg Koukl on Stu's syndicated TruthTalkLive.com talk show. In the debate, Koukl defends Rudi Giuliani, an aggressively pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Christian worldview candidate, as acceptable to Christian voters. Koukl denies that Giuliani is a mass murderer and denied the parallel between Koukl's own position and that of the Herodians of the New Testament. To start the debate, Bob asked Greg, "What if Rudi Giuliani is the Republican nominee, should Christians support someone like Rudi Giuliani?" Greg spent the whole show answering that question in the affirmative, stipulating only that his answer applies if two candidates in the running are Rudi and a Democrat candidate like Hillary Clinton. Bob characterized Greg's position as moral relativism. * Bob's Notes Against Christian Support for Giuliani: Christians should not support mass murderers. Rudi Giuliani is a mass murderer who as a governing official and candidate promotes child killing through public hospitals, tax funding, police enforcement, etc. Moral relativist Christians would oppose a candidate who was caught embezzling funds (not because it violates God's command, Do not steal, but because it is politically-incorrect). And while they'd not support a Republican caught embezzling, they support Republican candidates who brag of their support for killing children. The Gospels mention a pragmatic political party, the Herodians, the religious leaders who allied themselves with Herod Antipas, thinking that the Herodian dynasty was the lesser evil (than any alternative allegiance, with a choice between Herod or Christ, they would choose Herod), thinking the Herods were the best the Jewish worshippers could pragmatically expect in their hopes of attaining to their kingdom on Earth. (I have this understanding of the Herodians from my recollection of reading, way back in the 1970s, Alfred Edershiem's Life & Times of Jesus the Messiah, a classic written in the 1800s.) Like Rudi Giuliani, Herod was personally sexually immoral and murderous. Greg Koukl's moral relativism would defend supporting Herod. But John the Baptist, instead of joining the Herodians, rebuked Herod, and for his courage, this wicked ruler beheaded the man whom Jesus described as the greatest born to women (Mat. 11:11). But how would Jesus describe Koukl? Greg's moral relativism might have led him to campaign for Herod (as he does for Giuliani), and instead of persecution, Herod might have hired Koukl as an apologist for his murderous reign and his hopes for the continued support of Ceasar after Antipas built Tiberias (Koukl: yes, Herod murdered John the Baptist, but I would still campaign for him to rule). Greg Koukl is imitating the pragmatic religious leaders, the Herodians. Mat 22:16, 18 ...the Herodians, [said], "Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth [lip service]... But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?" [also at Mark 12:13] Mark 3:5-6   [Jesus saw] the hardness of their hearts, [and] the Herodians [plotted] against Him, how they might destroy Him. "You shall not murder" (Rom. 13:9) "Do not kill the innocent" (Exodus 23:7) Romans 3:8 mentions "do[ing] evil that good may come of it" (Romans 3:8), Paul considered it slander to be accused of something Christians now embrace, doing evil, that good may come of it. "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29) Giuliani is not only radically pro-abortion, but for years even supported the especially horrific partial-birth abortion. Giuliani is radically pro-homosexual, and would ban all handguns. New York Daily News, March 8, 2004  Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday against President Bush's call for a ban on gay marriage. ... "I certainly wouldn't support [a ban] at this time," added Giuliani, who lived with a gay Manhattan couple when he moved out of Gracie Mansion during his nasty divorce. Secular humanists who support Giuliani: Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, etc. Publicans: tax collectors, public building contractors, and military suppliers. The New Testament condemns the publicans, so Christians now sell their souls for the Re-publicans. The theme of much of the Old Testament, from the books of Moses, through Joshua & Judges, through the prophets, is that God's people did not trust Him, nor obey Him, not with national politics, and instead made alliances with wicked leaders, and so God abandoned them to their own destruction. * Comments at TruthTalkLive.com: Carl: where does Koukl draw the line? ... at 100,000,000? What line must be crossed that will turn Christians from supporting wickedness and back to God? Dave: Koukl thinks that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito would fight for the Personhood of a child. I guess he did not read the Supreme Court decision of Gonzales v. Carhart. John quotes Reagan: "Politics I supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." Gus B: Mr. Koukl says Giuliani will appoint justices like Thomas and Scalia. Pastor Enyart points out these two do not believe in personhood... to which Koukl says, "Pro-Life Justices are not relevant to this topic." Andrew: To support the better of two murderers is relative. ... Webster should post your photograph next to "moral relativist." * Give your opinion at TruthTalkLive.com. * Koukl on Foster Care: The socialist foster care system of the government being intimately involved in the funding and raising of children should be abolished. Sadly, in Greg Koukl's ten-minute call beginning at 9:20 about homosexuality and foster care, he never gets around to condemning either and instead makes destructive comments such as, "some same sex couples are fabulous" and misleads on a terrible aspect of socialism by saying at 15:05 that "in the foster care system there are many saints." Today's Resource: Have you seen the Government Department at our KGOV Store? You can view BOTH of our powerhouse Focus on the Strategy DVDs for only $22.99! Also, we are featuring Bruce Shortt's vitally-important book, The Harsh Truth about Public Schools. And also, check out the classic God's Criminal Justice System seminar, God and the Death Penalty, Bob on Drugs and the Live from Las Vegas DVDs! * Correction: I need to clarify a comment I made debating Greg Koukl. I unintentionally exaggerated when I stated that Hillary supported the PBA ban. I was taking this position from the years of public position the Clinton administration maintained regarding the PBA ban. When Hillary and Bill came to Colorado in 1999 and spoke as a couple to Columbine parents, Brian Rohrbough told Bill, "Mr. President, when you vetoed the PBA ban, you became responsible for murder far more violent than what happened to our children." Clinton replied, with Hillary at his side, that he would have signed the bill, but it did not have an exception for the life of the mother. To the extent that they were a two-for-one deal in the White House, I had always assumed that was her position also: willing to support the law, as long as it had exceptions (like many "pro-life" Republicans). At any rate, it was wrong to say outright that Hillary supported the ban. I should have clarified, and in the intensity of the debate, I did not realize that I had mistated her position. Also, I kept wanting to talk about Rudy's pro-abortion actions as NYC mayor, but never got that in. And finally on this, since the 1990s, we have had an Errata link on our homepage and on every page at kgov.com (just scroll down to see it) And I've also posted this correction at Stu Epperson's TruthTalkLive blog. Thanks! -Bob Enyart * Dec. 21, 2015 Update: Bob Enyart posted the following to STR... Hi STR! Dr. Richard Holland of Liberty University wrote "God, Time and the Incarnation" surveying the leading Christian theologians on this topic and concluded that specifically with respect to the Incarnation the church has never openly defended its claim that God is utterly unchangeable. In my debate with theologian Dr. James White I took that insight and five times asked him about whether God the Son took upon Himself a human nature. (There's a 2-min YouTube showing those excerpts.) So far beyond the old/new covenant issue, reaching right into the heart of the Trinity, God the Son became a Man. God is unchanging in His fierce commitment to righteousness (i.e., His holiness), but because He is the Living God, He changes in immeasurable ways, including when the Son became the Son of Man. * For Bob's Many Other Fun and Educational Debates: See kgov.com/debates for our creation/evolution sparring with Lawrence Krauss, Eugenie Scott, AronRa, Michael Shermer (and spats with Jack Horner, PZ Myers, Phil Plait, & Jerry Coyne), and our exposing the liberal in the conservative with Ann Coulter, Dan Caplis, Greg Koukl (of course), Tom Tancredo, AFA's Bryan Fischer, AUL's Paul Linton, CWA's Robert Knight, National RTL's Board, NRTL's Political Director, Focus on the Family's Washington State Affiliate; and exposing the wickedness in the liberal with Barry Lynn and libertarian candidates; and opposing the national sales tax with Ken Hoagland and Neal Boortz; and debating sexual immorality with homosexual activists Wayne Besen and Gregory Flood; and defending the death penalty on Court TV; and theology with a Seventh Day Adventist, drinking alcohol with a Church of Christ minister; and whether or not God is inexhaustibly and eternally creative with Dr. James White, and King James Onlyism with one of their leading advocates; and finally, abortion with Ilana Goldman, Peggy Loonan, and Boulder, Colorado's infamous late-term abortionist Warren Hern.  

The Western Wall  Part 22:  Herodian Stones -  English only.  Thousands of stones make up the Western Wall, but the ones dating back to the time of King Herod stand out. Perhaps, God wants his children to learn a lesson from those stones!  Recorded July 5, 2023.

The city of Tiberias looms large over the life and ministry of Jesus because of the powerful group of Jews it represented: The Herodians. These were wealthy, influential people who supported the pro-Roman Herodian regime. When we understand the background and origin of the city of Tiberias alongside the strategic ambition of the Herodian family, it makes perfect sense why the Herodians saw Jesus as a threat. By the end of this episode, you'll see why integrity and vulnerability lead to human flourishing rather than exploitation. 

The Western Wall  Part 9:  The Isaiah Stone  -  English only. Near the southern end of the Western Wall, just below Robinson's Arch, a verse from The Scriptures is engraved in a Herodian stone. Leen Ritmeyer, a leading archaeologist, described it as 'one of the most dramatic and memorable finds of the excavations that followed the Six Day War.' This centuries-old paleo-Hebrew inscription has a message for us today!  Recorded January 17, 2023. 

Esau and the Edomites is an often overlooked topic in many churches. The question arises, if evil is associated with Esau, when did this hatred end and when did God change his mind to love Esau as much as Jacob? The Bible provides insight into this subject. Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife who was barren and the Lord answered his prayers. Rebecca, his wife, gave birth to twins who struggled in her womb before birth. The Lord told Rebecca that two nations were in her womb and one would be stronger than the other, with the greater serving the younger. According to the Book of Jasher, Esau was deceitful from birth while Jacob was perfect and wise. Isaac loved Esau for eating his venison, but Rebecca loved Jacob. In Genesis 25, Jacob offered Esau bread and lentil pottage, and when Esau ate it, he despised his birthright. Jesus mentions that Esau fled from Nimrod due to exhaustion from fighting and fleeing. Esau was 40 years old when he married Judith, the daughter of Bride. Isaac blessed Jacob and charged him not to take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. Esau cried bitterly when he saw Isaac bless Jacob and send him away. The Bible mentions a conflict between Isaac and Jacob in Genesis 33. In Exodus 17, there was a war between Israel and Al-Malik, descendants of Esau. The Lord told Moses to write a memorial of this in a book and to declare it to Joshua. The Edomites did not accommodate the Israelites, leading God to hold it against them for generations. In 2 Samuel 8, David had a close companion who turned on him, typical of Edomites who deceitfully gained high positions next to the king. In John 13:18, Jesus spoke of his betrayal and death, referring to Judas Iscariot. Jesus used the same term as David when referring to his betrayal. In Matthew 21:38, Jesus gives the parable of the householder concerning the vineyard of the Lord. The husband sent his son, who the husbandmen wanted to kill to seize his inheritance. In John 8:38, Jesus argued with the Pharisees and Sadducees, saying they sought to kill him because his word had no place in them. Jesus revealed they were of their father the Devil. When Jesus was born, Herod, a descendant of the Herodium who had converted to Judaism, was on the throne and tried to kill Jesus. When Jesus confronted the Herodian scribes and Pharisees, he was dealing with Edomites who betrayed him. In Psalm 83, Edomites are described as warmongers and God has declared war against them. They are Confederate against the tabernacles of Edam and the Israelites of Moab, Gebal, Ammon, and Philistines.

Saturday, 19 November 2022   And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also. Now it was during the Days of Unleavened Bread. Acts 12:3   The previous verse noted the killing of James with the sword. Now, it continues, saying, “And because he saw that it pleased the Jews.” The meaning is clear. This doesn't mean all the Jews collectively, but those who represented the nation. It is referring to the Jews who were in the powerful positions and whose favor would more fully establish his political relations with them along with his own power within the realm. Because these leaders were happy that Agrippa had done away with one of the leading apostles, “he proceeded further to seize Peter also.”   The Greek is actually in the form of a Hebraism, saying, “he added to lay hold of Peter also.” It is a way of showing an increase in a proposition, whatever it may be. In this case, it is the proposition of eliminating the apostles for the sake of cementing political status and power.    The apostles had been a thorn in the side of the leadership for about ten years. Therefore, having the ruling governmental authority over them harass and destroy this group was a welcome occasion for the leading Jews. And because this pleased the Jews, while also solidifying his own position and power, Agrippa decided to continue with his attack against them. As Peter was a chief figure among them and one who had spoken boldly against the ruling council, he was probably personally called out by name by the Jews as the next suitable target. Ellicott agrees with this being a matter of politics, saying –   “This was throughout the ruling policy of the Herodian house. The persecution did not spring from any fanatic zeal against the new faith, but simply from motives of political expediency.”   Likewise, Cambridge further clarifies this relationship between the two by citing Josephus –   “This Josephus notices (Antiq. xix. 7. 3), for, comparing Agrippa with the Herod who ruled before him, he mentions that the latter ‘was more friendly to the Greeks than to the Jews,' in which matter he says Agrippa ‘was not at all like him.'”   With the event explained, the timing of it is next provided, saying, “Now it was during the Days of Unleavened Bread.”   The meaning is that this is during the time of the Passover and the pilgrim feast of Unleavened Bread which accompanies it. Luke unites the two in one thought as he did in his gospel. This is evident because the Passover actually precedes and leads into Unleavened Bread. Notice, however, that Luke unites them using the commonly used terminology for both that had been adopted in Israel –   “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called Passover. 2 And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people. 3 Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve. 4 So he went his way and conferred with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them. 5 And they were glad, and agreed to give him money. 6 So he promised and sought opportunity to betray Him to them in the absence of the multitude. 7 Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed. 8 And He sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat.'” Luke 22:1-8   As it is now the time of the Passover, it would be especially pleasing to the Jews. They had crucified Jesus at this time, and it was certainly welcome that Peter had been seized at the same time of year. However, one can see the backroom dealing of the Jews and Agrippa in the words of the coming verse which will be analyzed in the next commentary.    Life application: Some people refuse to talk to others about religion and politics. Some will talk about religion but not politics, or vice versa. The fact is that Christians are obligated to speak out about Jesus in order to be considered faithful servants of the Lord. This doesn't mean that all must be evangelists and stand on the street corner, but we should be willing to speak about Jesus when the occasion arises or when questioned about our faith.   But it is also true that we live in a world where earthly governments rule. It is the policy of some sects, such as the Roman Catholic Church, to participate in the running of governments, dictating to them what should and should not be done. It is the policy of some sects and cults to never engage in any political activity at all, not even voting. This is the policy of the cult known as the Jehovah's Witnesses.   Both approaches are flawed. Governments that are led by religion will inevitably become religiously tyrannical. Governments that have no representation of faithful Christians will become wholly immoral and destructive against any who are spiritually aligned with Christ.   As this is so, it is incumbent on faithful Christians to engage in voting and even in running for political office. By doing so, their views can be expressed and protected. Paul was a Roman citizen and he appealed to his citizenship unashamedly. He attempted to convert public officials, kings, and others in governmental positions. These things are undeniable as revealed in Scripture. Therefore, it is to the benefit of both the general population and the working of the government in which one lives to be active in both religious and governmental affairs.   Have a right balance in your thinking concerning these things. And above all, do not listen to those who claim an ultra-piety that says, “I am not of this world.” In this, they rip the words of Jesus (John 15:19) out of any proper context in order to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the events of life.   Rather, Paul clearly shows – both in his actions and in his writings – that we are in this world, and we must conduct our affairs in this world, but that we also have a better hope than this world. We cannot deny either without having an unbalanced approach to the lives that we live – in the here and now and in the hope of the future that lies ahead.   Lord God, how good it is to know that even though we are in this world and have lives to lead, we also have a hope that transcends this earthly life. Our true hope is not in a leader, a bank account, a form of government, or a retirement that provides a false sense of safety and security. None of these things can ever come close to the glory that lies ahead when Christ comes for His people. How we long for that day, and may that day be soon! Amen.

Welcome to the Maccabean Revolt period! Jeff Cavins joins Fr. Mike to introduce the tenth biblical period in our journey, which begins with the Greek oppression of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes, and ends with Herodian rule of the Holy Land. Jeff and Fr. Mike walk us through the key events of this period, highlighting the zealous response of the Maccabean family, the celebration of Hanukkah, and the heroic martyrdom of Jews who would not betray their religious identity in the midst of persecution. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/bibleinayear. Please note: The Bible contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

Today we're going back to a debate between the late great Bob Enyart and famed Christian apologist and talk show host Greg Koukl of Reasons to Believe. Tragically, Koukl puts on full display his moral relativism, which Bob takes issue with. This debate is the battle of two conservatives, both intellectual powerhouses. Dominic Enyart will also be adding some commentary on today's broadcast classic, then next week on Bob Enyart Live we're going to get to a devastating 2020 update from Koukl where he said, "some same sex couples are fabulous." Today's Resource: Monthly Bible Study Subscription Receive Bible studies once a month, and start by getting a firm foundation of the basics. Once you have a solid understanding of the overall plot of the Bible, the origins of Israel, the integration of the gentiles, and the character of God, then you'll be ready to dive into the deeper details of the Bible. Start with the milk, then graduate to the meat. Those who have subscribed to the Monthly Bible studies have said it's changed their life dramatically for the better and given them a new appreciation for the Bible and God Himself. Sign up now, before prices rise! (Due to inflation. Thanks, Biden- ugh.) See the original show summary below from October 26th, 2007.  [See below for the written description of this 2007 program.] * Tragic 2020 Update: Considered a solid Christian leader by many thousands of believers (and in many ways beloved by us here at BEL), the founder and host of Stand to Reason, Greg Koukl has tragically stated, beginning at 9:40 into a podcast, that "some same sex couples are fabulous." Please pray for Greg and for the man who phoned in a question, and for all those Greg is not-so-subtly influencing to become moral relativists. Here's what happened... A caller asks whether children are better off in foster care or adopted by same sex parents. "Some same sex couples are fabulous. Some same sex couples are deplorable. And actually, the same is true for heterosexual couples." Greg then offers the softest possible objection to one of the fiercest moral dangers of our day, which is homosexuality. (For, "In the public square, biblical Christianity and homosexuality are mutually exclusive. One or the other will be in the closet.") He followed that by repeatedly obfuscating with moral relativist utilitarian distinctions about which parents give the "advantage" and which is "better".  Koukl draws false equivalencies between homosexuality and heterosexual singleness, cohabitation, and bad parenting. Regarding same sex parenting, "there are other things [aspects of their parenting] that may be really good... there are a number of factors that are involved here. ... All things being equal I think it is better for heterosexual couples to raise children." "A father brings something different to the relationship than a mother does. Period." Koukl puts much more emphasis on practical distinctions than he does on the far greater matter of the utter perversion and rebellion of homosexuality. Greg exhibits more fear about how his audience will view him than he does about the child raised in a dystopian world of normalized homosexuality. "Just to show that I'm not unfairly prejudiced here... I don't believe that single people should adopt." "What we want to do is to make decisions based on the ideal." "This is why it's hard to make a judgment. Are children in foster care better off [being adopted by] same sex couples or better off staying in foster care. It depends on the individual circumstance. I would rather see a child in a reasonably healthy environment with a same sex couple than in an abusive environment with a heterosexual couple." If that isn't moral relativism, then there is no such thing. Constantly equivocating on underlying morality and legitimacy, "The big thing is, what's best for the kid... Heterosexual parents are better than same sex parents, on balance." "However if this child had no parent whatsoever and was living in the squalor in the street somewhere..." Talk about situational ethics. Would Greg rather see a child rescued from a volcanic eruption by a human trafficker, than be burned alive? Oh brother. Come on. (Here's an actual example. In our 2007 debate Greg was defending pro-abort Rudi Guiliani, who got 3% of the pimary vote, and Christian listeners applied his arguments to pro-abort Mitt Romney of course, who got 22% of the vote, with pro-abort McCain winning. Regarding Romney, the presidential candidate four years later who regarding an unborn child who might end up being raised by a crack-addicted mother, would be only too happy to support the premptive killing of that baby. Or, for that matter, he supported killing any unborn child for any reason, for Romney is the father of tax-funded late-term abortion on demand.) "Heterosexual couples bring something more to the parenting environment than same sex couples bring." "You've got to start from the standards and work to the circumstances that you're faced with." Which is exactly the opposite of what Greg had just done in yet another text-book case of moral relativism. * Correction: Bob unintentionally exaggerated Clinton's willingness to support the PBA ban. See the full correction at the end of this show summary. * Christian Leader Koukl Defends Candidate Giuliani: Stu Epperson moderates the debate between Bob Enyart and STR.org's Greg Koukl on Stu's syndicated TruthTalkLive.com talk show. In the debate, Koukl defends Rudi Giuliani, an aggressively pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Christian worldview candidate, as acceptable to Christian voters. Koukl denies that Giuliani is a mass murderer and denied the parallel between Koukl's own position and that of the Herodians of the New Testament. To start the debate, Bob asked Greg, "What if Rudi Giuliani is the Republican nominee, should Christians support someone like Rudi Giuliani?" Greg spent the whole show answering that question in the affirmative, stipulating only that his answer applies if two candidates in the running are Rudi and a Democrat candidate like Hillary Clinton. Bob characterized Greg's position as moral relativism. * Bob's Notes Against Christian Support for Giuliani: Christians should not support mass murderers. Rudi Giuliani is a mass murderer who as a governing official and candidate promotes child killing through public hospitals, tax funding, police enforcement, etc. Moral relativist Christians would oppose a candidate who was caught embezzling funds (not because it violates God's command, Do not steal, but because it is politically-incorrect). And while they'd not support a Republican caught embezzling, they support Republican candidates who brag of their support for killing children. The Gospels mention a pragmatic political party, the Herodians, the religious leaders who allied themselves with Herod Antipas, thinking that the Herodian dynasty was the lesser evil (than any alternative allegiance, with a choice between Herod or Christ, they would choose Herod), thinking the Herods were the best the Jewish worshippers could pragmatically expect in their hopes of attaining to their kingdom on Earth. (I have this understanding of the Herodians from my recollection of reading, way back in the 1970s, Alfred Edershiem's Life & Times of Jesus the Messiah, a classic written in the 1800s.) Like Rudi Giuliani, Herod was personally sexually immoral and murderous. Greg Koukl's moral relativism would defend supporting Herod. But John the Baptist, instead of joining the Herodians, rebuked Herod, and for his courage, this wicked ruler beheaded the man whom Jesus described as the greatest born to women (Mat. 11:11). But how would Jesus describe Koukl? Greg's moral relativism might have led him to campaign for Herod (as he does for Giuliani), and instead of persecution, Herod might have hired Koukl as an apologist for his murderous reign and his hopes for the continued support of Ceasar after Antipas built Tiberias (Koukl: yes, Herod murdered John the Baptist, but I would still campaign for him to rule). Greg Koukl is imitating the pragmatic religious leaders, the Herodians. Mat 22:16, 18 ...the Herodians, [said], "Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth [lip service]... But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?" [also at Mark 12:13] Mark 3:5-6   [Jesus saw] the hardness of their hearts, [and] the Herodians [plotted] against Him, how they might destroy Him. "You shall not murder" (Rom. 13:9) "Do not kill the innocent" (Exodus 23:7) Romans 3:8 mentions "do[ing] evil that good may come of it" (Romans 3:8), Paul considered it slander to be accused of something Christians now embrace, doing evil, that good may come of it. "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29) Giuliani is not only radically pro-abortion, but for years even supported the especially horrific partial-birth abortion. Giuliani is radically pro-homosexual, and would ban all handguns. New York Daily News, March 8, 2004  Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday against President Bush's call for a ban on gay marriage. ... "I certainly wouldn't support [a ban] at this time," added Giuliani, who lived with a gay Manhattan couple when he moved out of Gracie Mansion during his nasty divorce. Secular humanists who support Giuliani: Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, etc. Publicans: tax collectors, public building contractors, and military suppliers. The New Testament condemns the publicans, so Christians now sell their souls for the Re-publicans. The theme of much of the Old Testament, from the books of Moses, through Joshua & Judges, through the prophets, is that God's people did not trust Him, nor obey Him, not with national politics, and instead made alliances with wicked leaders, and so God abandoned them to their own destruction. * Comments at TruthTalkLive.com: Carl: where does Koukl draw the line? ... at 100,000,000? What line must be crossed that will turn Christians from supporting wickedness and back to God? Dave: Koukl thinks that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito would fight for the Personhood of a child. I guess he did not read the Supreme Court decision of Gonzales v. Carhart. John quotes Reagan: "Politics I supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." Gus B: Mr. Koukl says Giuliani will appoint justices like Thomas and Scalia. Pastor Enyart points out these two do not believe in personhood... to which Koukl says, "Pro-Life Justices are not relevant to this topic." Andrew: To support the better of two murderers is relative. ... Webster should post your photograph next to "moral relativist." * Give your opinion at TruthTalkLive.com. * Koukl on Foster Care: The socialist foster care system of the government being intimately involved in the funding and raising of children should be abolished. Sadly, in Greg Koukl's ten-minute call beginning at 9:20 about homosexuality and foster care, he never gets around to condemning either and instead makes destructive comments such as, "some same sex couples are fabulous" and misleads on a terrible aspect of socialism by saying at 15:05 that "in the foster care system there are many saints." Today's Resource: Have you seen the Government Department at our KGOV Store? You can view BOTH of our powerhouse Focus on the Strategy DVDs for only $22.99! Also, we are featuring Bruce Shortt's vitally-important book, The Harsh Truth about Public Schools. And also, check out the classic God's Criminal Justice System seminar, God and the Death Penalty, Bob on Drugs and the Live from Las Vegas DVDs! * Correction: I need to clarify a comment I made debating Greg Koukl. I unintentionally exaggerated when I stated that Hillary supported the PBA ban. I was taking this position from the years of public position the Clinton administration maintained regarding the PBA ban. When Hillary and Bill came to Colorado in 1999 and spoke as a couple to Columbine parents, Brian Rohrbough told Bill, "Mr. President, when you vetoed the PBA ban, you became responsible for murder far more violent than what happened to our children." Clinton replied, with Hillary at his side, that he would have signed the bill, but it did not have an exception for the life of the mother. To the extent that they were a two-for-one deal in the White House, I had always assumed that was her position also: willing to support the law, as long as it had exceptions (like many "pro-life" Republicans). At any rate, it was wrong to say outright that Hillary supported the ban. I should have clarified, and in the intensity of the debate, I did not realize that I had mistated her position. Also, I kept wanting to talk about Rudy's pro-abortion actions as NYC mayor, but never got that in. And finally on this, since the 1990s, we have had an Errata link on our homepage and on every page at kgov.com (just scroll down to see it) And I've also posted this correction at Stu Epperson's TruthTalkLive blog. Thanks! -Bob Enyart * Dec. 21, 2015 Update: Bob Enyart posted the following to STR... Hi STR! Dr. Richard Holland of Liberty University wrote "God, Time and the Incarnation" surveying the leading Christian theologians on this topic and concluded that specifically *with respect to the Incarnation* the church has never openly defended its claim that God is utterly unchangeable. In my debate with theologian Dr. James White I took that insight and five times asked him about whether God the Son took upon Himself a human nature. (There's a 2-min YouTube showing those excerpts.) So far beyond the old/new covenant issue, reaching right into the heart of the Trinity, God the Son became a Man. God is unchanging in His fierce commitment to righteousness (i.e., His holiness), but because He is the Living God, He changes in immeasurable ways, including when the Son became the Son of Man. * For Bob's Many Other Fun and Educational Debates: See kgov.com/debates for our creation/evolution sparring with Lawrence Krauss, Eugenie Scott, AronRa, Michael Shermer (and spats with Jack Horner, PZ Myers, Phil Plait, & Jerry Coyne), and our exposing the liberal in the conservative with Ann Coulter, Dan Caplis, Greg Koukl (of course), Tom Tancredo, AFA's Bryan Fischer, AUL's Paul Linton, CWA's Robert Knight, National RTL's Board, NRTL's Political Director, Focus on the Family's Washington State Affiliate; and exposing the wickedness in the liberal with Barry Lynn and libertarian candidates; and opposing the national sales tax with Ken Hoagland and Neal Boortz; and debating sexual immorality with homosexual activists Wayne Besen and Gregory Flood; and defending the death penalty on Court TV; and theology with a Seventh Day Adventist, drinking alcohol with a Church of Christ minister; and whether or not God is inexhaustibly and eternally creative with Dr. James White, and King James Onlyism with one of their leading advocates; and finally, abortion with Ilana Goldman, Peggy Loonan, and Boulder, Colorado's infamous late-term abortionist Warren Hern.