Sorry it's taken so long to get this up. I haven't had Internet access at home and keep forgetting to stick my notes on my thumb drive. Oh, well.
So, I'm going to jump right back in:
Not too long after this (see the previous post) came the notorious Antiochus IV. He was a prideful ruler who called himself Epiphanes, meaning “manifest god,” and he enforced the Hellenization of the Jews with ruthless cruelty. The Jews called him Epipmanes (“madman”). In December of 168 B.C., Antiochus IV captured Jerusalem and seized the temple, converting it into a temple for Zeus and sacrificing a pig on the altar. The Jews fled, scattering from Jerusalem. This act was horrendous, but it did provide impetus for the Maccabean revolt and the Jews’ short period of autonomous rule.
In 176 B.C. an ambassador of Antiochus IV came to a little town called Modin to force the villagers to make sacrifices to the Greek gods. Under this coercion, one villager ventured forward to make a sacrifice, and the priest of Modin, Mattathias, was outraged. He killed the villager and then fled to the hills to hide with his sons. This began the Maccabean revolt.
Mattathias’s son Judas was the first leader of the resistance. Known as Judas Maccabeus (“the hammer”) because of his military and tactical skills, he defeated armies much larger than his own. His brother Jonathan became leader when he was killed in an ambush. Jonathan was not nearly so skilled in military maneuvers, but he was an excellent diplomat and managed to negotiate several treaties that helped advance the eventual independence of the Jewish people. Simon was the last of Mattathias’s sons to become a leader. He became high priest when the Jews finally gained their independence and began a leadership that combined both religious and civil authority.
The Jewish rule that began with the Maccabees lasted from 143 to 63 B.C. and entailed a succession of mostly weak rulers. Eventually, two brothers, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, fought for control of the nation, and Rome, seeing the opportunity, stepped in to seize control. Once again, the Jews had lost their independence. But however short, the Hashmonean period had several effects worthy of attention: Jewish nationalism was greatly stirred, expectation of the Messiah was running at a high, and the Pharisees and Sadducees had developed.
The Roman governorship of Palestine began with the Herodian dynasty, under Antipater, then Herod the Great, who ruled from 47 to 4 B.C. Herod the Great was an astonishing architect, and he oversaw the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem in 20 B.C. The Jews experienced little political or religious interference from the Romans at this time, though the underlying Roman hatred of the idea of a Jewish Messiah (which, to the Roman mind, represented a threat to Roman authority) would later become evident when Herod the Great issued a decree to have all the children under two years old murdered when he heard that the Messiah had been born. The Roman rulers of Palestine who followed were Herod the Great’s sons, Archelaus, Herod Philip II, and Herod Antipas (who had John the Baptist killed and was involved in the later trial of Jesus). There were many other Roman governors of Palestine as well, but only three are mentioned in the New Testament—Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus.
The Roman rule had much effect on the Jewish people in preparation for entrance of the Messiah. The Roman system of roads provided an easy connection between nearly all places, and the Roman law made for a time of relative peace. This would tremendously facilitate the spread of the gospel. Also, Roman law officially recognized Judaism as a legitimate religion, which would protect the growth of Christianity (originally considered a branch of Judaism) during its early years.
The religion of the time was also an important factor in preparing the world for Jesus’ coming. Many religions existed in Rome—pantheism, emperor worship, mystery religions, Gnosticism, and philosophy. Judaism itself was changing in many ways. With the dispersion of the Jews during the Babylonian exile and the persecution of Antiochus IV, the Jews had been spread throughout the Roman Empire. They no longer spoke solely Hebrew; Greek and Aramaic were known by most. The Septuagint had been translated under Ptolemy Philadelphius. The temple had been destroyed and rebuilt, and synagogues had been established in many places for teaching and preserving the Jewish culture and religion. Pharisees and Sadducees had emerged, as well as the scribes, zealots, Herodians, and Essenes (Jewish isolationists). The Jews had a renewed sense of nationalism, and expectation of the Messiah was running high.
Now God, through these radical movements in politics, religion, culture, and philosophy, had all the pieces perfectly in place; the world was ready for Jesus to come. The Roman roads and common Greek language, the expectation of the Messiah, the fierce nationality that the Jews were feeling—none had come about by accident, but all were by divine design.
And what happened next? We know the story because it is recorded. The “400 Years of Silence” were broken with the proclamation of angels. The four Gospels record the unbelievable new history that began to unfold, beginning in Bethlehem, with the birth of Jesus.
And THIS is why I've loved my little historical "rabbit trail" so much.
9.30.2007
9.26.2007
A Little History Lesson
I’ve been in Daniel this past week, and I’ve been particularly interested in the account of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2—a dream of a great statue representing four powerful Gentile kingdoms (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome). You remember: the gold head, the silver arms/chest, etc. Anyway, this somehow catapulted me into a study of the “Intertestamental Period,” the time when a lot of the action involving Israel and the Gentile kingdoms took place.
I know, I’m a nerd.
And yes. You’re about to have a history lesson. Put on your “nerd” hats, everyone.
Here’s the motivation to hear this, though: it’s an incredible lesson in God’s power and transcendence, yet also startling immanence, in His dealings with earthly kingdoms. He’s sovereign over them (as Nebuchadnezzar learned) and orchestrates every detail along the lines of redemptive history. So this “dusty old history” actually is incredibly significant. For those of you who are still reading at this point, here’s a “brief” summary of my studies:
Scripture doesn’t record the 400 years of the Intertestamental Period—the span from the closing of the Old Testament to the opening of the New Testament. These years (424 B.C. to 4 or 5 B.C., I think) are called the “Silent Years” or the “400 Years of Silence” because there was no new word from God during this time. Prophecy ceased, and God’s work with His people shifted to a solely providential/historical platform (until the coming of Christ). The term “silent” shouldn’t give the impression of dormancy, though; this was a time of dynamic change in the political and societal powers of Israel and the surrounding nations—climactic developments that prepared the way for the advent of the Messiah and the spread of the gospel throughout the known world. From an earthly viewpoint, the nations probably seemed to be changing haphazardly, by chance, but God actually was very much at work, ordering everything to accommodate His redemptive plan.
Anyway, the Intertestamental Period began after Malachi, the last Old Testament prophetic book, was written. Persia had overthrown Babylon (as recorded in Daniel) and declared that the Jews could start returning to Judea, regrouping and rebuilding (as recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah). During this time, the Persian government appointed the high priest as civil leader in Judah. Also, synagogues were built to preserve Jewish culture and religion. It was a time of relative peace...but not for long.
In 331 B.C., Alexander the Great overthrew Persia, with his grandiose vision to unite the world under the Greek empire and culture. To facilitate this, he established learning centers in various cities. This actually was very significant for the yet-to-come-Christianity, because it created widespread commonality of culture, philosophy, and language—something that would be a tremendous help in the rapid spread of the gospel.
When Alexander died without an heir, his empire was divided among his four generals. The first to reign over Palestine was Ptolemy I, and during his rule, the Jewish scribes (who copied and interpreted the written Law) and the Sanhedrin (the Jewish ruling body, composed of seventy members and a high priest) developed. Then, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphius, the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek—producing what we know as the Septuagint.
Annnddd...this will have to be continued in a day or two. (It's getting way too long.) Stay tuned!
I know, I’m a nerd.
And yes. You’re about to have a history lesson. Put on your “nerd” hats, everyone.
Here’s the motivation to hear this, though: it’s an incredible lesson in God’s power and transcendence, yet also startling immanence, in His dealings with earthly kingdoms. He’s sovereign over them (as Nebuchadnezzar learned) and orchestrates every detail along the lines of redemptive history. So this “dusty old history” actually is incredibly significant. For those of you who are still reading at this point, here’s a “brief” summary of my studies:
Scripture doesn’t record the 400 years of the Intertestamental Period—the span from the closing of the Old Testament to the opening of the New Testament. These years (424 B.C. to 4 or 5 B.C., I think) are called the “Silent Years” or the “400 Years of Silence” because there was no new word from God during this time. Prophecy ceased, and God’s work with His people shifted to a solely providential/historical platform (until the coming of Christ). The term “silent” shouldn’t give the impression of dormancy, though; this was a time of dynamic change in the political and societal powers of Israel and the surrounding nations—climactic developments that prepared the way for the advent of the Messiah and the spread of the gospel throughout the known world. From an earthly viewpoint, the nations probably seemed to be changing haphazardly, by chance, but God actually was very much at work, ordering everything to accommodate His redemptive plan.
Anyway, the Intertestamental Period began after Malachi, the last Old Testament prophetic book, was written. Persia had overthrown Babylon (as recorded in Daniel) and declared that the Jews could start returning to Judea, regrouping and rebuilding (as recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah). During this time, the Persian government appointed the high priest as civil leader in Judah. Also, synagogues were built to preserve Jewish culture and religion. It was a time of relative peace...but not for long.
In 331 B.C., Alexander the Great overthrew Persia, with his grandiose vision to unite the world under the Greek empire and culture. To facilitate this, he established learning centers in various cities. This actually was very significant for the yet-to-come-Christianity, because it created widespread commonality of culture, philosophy, and language—something that would be a tremendous help in the rapid spread of the gospel.
When Alexander died without an heir, his empire was divided among his four generals. The first to reign over Palestine was Ptolemy I, and during his rule, the Jewish scribes (who copied and interpreted the written Law) and the Sanhedrin (the Jewish ruling body, composed of seventy members and a high priest) developed. Then, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphius, the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek—producing what we know as the Septuagint.
Annnddd...this will have to be continued in a day or two. (It's getting way too long.) Stay tuned!
9.25.2007
The Youth-anizing of America
Remember Peter Pan’s sing-song caw—“I'll never grow up!”? It seems that this inadvertently has become the slogan of America’s young adults.
On his blog, Dr. Al Mohler recently reviewed Diana West’s book The Death of the Grown-up, which gives interesting insights into the trend of “prolonged adolescence.” This is something academics have noted for a while now: American youth are simply taking a lot longer to mature than they used to. (Dr. Mohler’s review is here.)
In a September 30, 2004, article on USAToday.com (entitled “It’s Time to Grow Up—Later”) Sharon Jayson wrote, “Recent findings published by the American Sociological Association and based on U.S. Census data show a sharp decline in the percentage of young adults who have finished school, left home, gotten married, had a child and reached financial independence, considered typical standards of adulthood. In 2000, 46% of women and 31% of men had reached those markers by age 30, vs. 77% of women and 65% of men at the same age in 1960.”
I find this intriguing, principally because I myself am a 20-something post-undergraduate. The statistics are compelling, and I have to admit that, statistics or no, I would concede that young adults do have a bit of that Peter Pan mentality these days; we just aren’t in that much of a hurry to grow up. And our baby-boomer parents are scratching their heads, bemused at how this contrasts where they were in life at our age
Now, there is some uncertainty as to whether this trend should be blamed solely on young people’s stubborn refusal to “grow up.” Other factors are posited: longer life spans, relaxed sexual/marital standards, and, maybe most significant, the fact that preparing for a decent job takes a lot longer than it used to—the bachelor’s degree being the new high-school diploma, they say.
Jayson commented, “In the 1970s, a bachelor’s degree could launch a career and support a family. Not anymore. Now, graduate school is almost a necessity and that means greater expenses, often when students are still saddled with college loans. More years of schooling also mean a delay entering the workforce. In this down economy, there's also stiffer competition for jobs. Financial independence is but a dream for many.”
Which is why many 20-somethings are moving back in with their parents, studies have found.
So, there is some ostensible credence to the idea that prolonged adolescence (or “arrested development”) isn’t entirely the fault of the—well, the prolonged adolescents.
But I hesitate to attribute this growth problem fully to outside factors, either. My generation is admittedly the self-esteem generation. Honestly, I think it likely that we have been coddled and “self-actualized” into a veritable Neverland of self-centeredness—and I have to wonder whether this disproportionate focus on self hasn't deadened our sense of commitment and responsibility (both personally and societally). That might help explain why so many college graduates these days forego entering the educated workforce in favor of backpacking Europe or living at home indefinitely, while trying to figure out “what I really want to do.”
What is equally interesting to ponder is whether this problem truly is just with America’s 20-somethings, or if it reaches beyond. Actually, this is what makes West’s book a bit unique, according to Mohler. She explores American culture and the interaction/participation of adults in the adolescent culture. Mohler quotes her as saying, “More adults, ages eighteen to forty-nine, watch the Cartoon Network than watch CNN. Readers as old as twenty-five are buying ‘young adult’ fiction written expressly for teens. The average video gamester was eighteen in 1990; now he's going on thirty.” And he comments, “Teenagers of an older generation tried to identify with adult culture. Now, the tables are turned.” He then quotes West as saying, “These days, of course, father and son dress more or less alike, from message-emblazoned t-shirts to chunky athletic shoes, both equally at ease in the baggy rumple of eternal summer camp. In the mature male, these trappings of adolescence have become more than a matter of comfort or style; they reveal a state of mind, a reflection of a personality that hasn't fully developed, and doesn't want to—or worse, doesn't know how.”
What are the implications? Mohler summarizes this chillingly well: “This kind of pattern is far more likely to bring down a civilization than to build a new one in its place. Civilizations require adults. The second part of West's book argues that this pattern of ‘arrested development’ leaves America unprepared to confront challenges like Islam and terrorism.” This is frightening indeed. We sit watching Sponge Bob and playing Wii while the rest of the “grown up” world carries on with...what?
Anyway, this obviously isn't something new. But I do think it's worth taking a few minutes to read through and mull over.
On his blog, Dr. Al Mohler recently reviewed Diana West’s book The Death of the Grown-up, which gives interesting insights into the trend of “prolonged adolescence.” This is something academics have noted for a while now: American youth are simply taking a lot longer to mature than they used to. (Dr. Mohler’s review is here.)
In a September 30, 2004, article on USAToday.com (entitled “It’s Time to Grow Up—Later”) Sharon Jayson wrote, “Recent findings published by the American Sociological Association and based on U.S. Census data show a sharp decline in the percentage of young adults who have finished school, left home, gotten married, had a child and reached financial independence, considered typical standards of adulthood. In 2000, 46% of women and 31% of men had reached those markers by age 30, vs. 77% of women and 65% of men at the same age in 1960.”
I find this intriguing, principally because I myself am a 20-something post-undergraduate. The statistics are compelling, and I have to admit that, statistics or no, I would concede that young adults do have a bit of that Peter Pan mentality these days; we just aren’t in that much of a hurry to grow up. And our baby-boomer parents are scratching their heads, bemused at how this contrasts where they were in life at our age
Now, there is some uncertainty as to whether this trend should be blamed solely on young people’s stubborn refusal to “grow up.” Other factors are posited: longer life spans, relaxed sexual/marital standards, and, maybe most significant, the fact that preparing for a decent job takes a lot longer than it used to—the bachelor’s degree being the new high-school diploma, they say.
Jayson commented, “In the 1970s, a bachelor’s degree could launch a career and support a family. Not anymore. Now, graduate school is almost a necessity and that means greater expenses, often when students are still saddled with college loans. More years of schooling also mean a delay entering the workforce. In this down economy, there's also stiffer competition for jobs. Financial independence is but a dream for many.”
Which is why many 20-somethings are moving back in with their parents, studies have found.
So, there is some ostensible credence to the idea that prolonged adolescence (or “arrested development”) isn’t entirely the fault of the—well, the prolonged adolescents.
But I hesitate to attribute this growth problem fully to outside factors, either. My generation is admittedly the self-esteem generation. Honestly, I think it likely that we have been coddled and “self-actualized” into a veritable Neverland of self-centeredness—and I have to wonder whether this disproportionate focus on self hasn't deadened our sense of commitment and responsibility (both personally and societally). That might help explain why so many college graduates these days forego entering the educated workforce in favor of backpacking Europe or living at home indefinitely, while trying to figure out “what I really want to do.”
What is equally interesting to ponder is whether this problem truly is just with America’s 20-somethings, or if it reaches beyond. Actually, this is what makes West’s book a bit unique, according to Mohler. She explores American culture and the interaction/participation of adults in the adolescent culture. Mohler quotes her as saying, “More adults, ages eighteen to forty-nine, watch the Cartoon Network than watch CNN. Readers as old as twenty-five are buying ‘young adult’ fiction written expressly for teens. The average video gamester was eighteen in 1990; now he's going on thirty.” And he comments, “Teenagers of an older generation tried to identify with adult culture. Now, the tables are turned.” He then quotes West as saying, “These days, of course, father and son dress more or less alike, from message-emblazoned t-shirts to chunky athletic shoes, both equally at ease in the baggy rumple of eternal summer camp. In the mature male, these trappings of adolescence have become more than a matter of comfort or style; they reveal a state of mind, a reflection of a personality that hasn't fully developed, and doesn't want to—or worse, doesn't know how.”
What are the implications? Mohler summarizes this chillingly well: “This kind of pattern is far more likely to bring down a civilization than to build a new one in its place. Civilizations require adults. The second part of West's book argues that this pattern of ‘arrested development’ leaves America unprepared to confront challenges like Islam and terrorism.” This is frightening indeed. We sit watching Sponge Bob and playing Wii while the rest of the “grown up” world carries on with...what?
Anyway, this obviously isn't something new. But I do think it's worth taking a few minutes to read through and mull over.
9.24.2007
A Resurrection
I've recently discovered something about blogs: if you don't update them, no one reads them. (I know; this is shocking.) Over the last few months, my posting frequency on Xanga has plummeted from the "sporadic" level to somewhere near "nonexistent." This, understandably, has resulted in the site becoming something of a wasteland. (You could almost see the tumbleweeds rolling across the screen and hear the coyotes howling.) I thought about trying to breathe some new life into that site, renovating what I had, but then decided that an all-around fresh start might be better (and easier). So, this is my attempt to shake off the "blog reticence" and stake my claim on a little corner of the Web.
Why the sudden reinterest in blogging? Well, a lack of writing would seem to indicate: (1) that nothing's happening in my life, and/or (2) that I have nothing to say about anything (and thus am not thinking very much--or very critically--about anything). Well, the first definitely is not true. There's a lot going on in my life these days, and I know there are at least a few people who like to know about these things. And the second...well, as much as I hate to admit it, it does ring truer. It's easy to fall prey to monotony and exchange reason for rote. But I don't like to see it happen.
Anyway, the point I'm oh-so-slowly arriving at is that, if for no other reasons than (1) to keep the few interested people updated on what I'm up to and (2) to keep myself engaged in some form of mental activity, I'm going to be updated this blog MUCH more often than I did the other one--starting now. Check back very soon!
Why the sudden reinterest in blogging? Well, a lack of writing would seem to indicate: (1) that nothing's happening in my life, and/or (2) that I have nothing to say about anything (and thus am not thinking very much--or very critically--about anything). Well, the first definitely is not true. There's a lot going on in my life these days, and I know there are at least a few people who like to know about these things. And the second...well, as much as I hate to admit it, it does ring truer. It's easy to fall prey to monotony and exchange reason for rote. But I don't like to see it happen.
Anyway, the point I'm oh-so-slowly arriving at is that, if for no other reasons than (1) to keep the few interested people updated on what I'm up to and (2) to keep myself engaged in some form of mental activity, I'm going to be updated this blog MUCH more often than I did the other one--starting now. Check back very soon!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)