Hebrew Bible as an Inspiration for Ancient Greek Philosophy

by Damien F. Mackey Moreover, St. Justin Martyr had, even earlier than the above-mentioned Church Fathers, espoused the view of the Greek philosophers borrowing from the biblical Hebrews. In previous articles I have supported i. St. Clement of Alexandria’s view that Plato’s writings took their inspiration from the Hebrew Moses, and ii. St. Ambrose’s belief that Plato had learned from the prophet Jeremiah in Egypt; a belief that was initially taken up by St. Augustine, who added that iii. Greek philosophy generally derived from the Jewish Scriptures. And, though St. Augustine later retracted his acceptance of St. Ambrose’s view, realising that it was chronologically impossible for Jeremiah (c. 600 BC) to have met Plato anywhere, considering the c. 400 BC date customarily assigned to Plato, I have, on the other hand, looked to turn this around by challenging the conventional dates. From the Book of Jeremiah we learn that Jeremiah and Baruch went together to Egypt. So this Baruch, whom tradition also identifies as Zoroaster, would be a possible candidate to consider for St. Ambrose’s ‘Plato who was contemporaneous with Jeremiah in Egypt’. Again, much of Plato’s most famous work, The Republic, with its themes of justice and righteousness, could have arisen, I suggest, from the intense dialogues of the books of Jeremiah and Job of identical themes. Saint Justin Martyr Moreover, St. Justin Martyr had, even earlier than the above-mentioned Church Fathers, espoused the view of the Greek philosophers borrowing from the biblical Hebrews. And Justin Martyr too, had, like Plato, written an Apology, in Justin’s case also apparently (like Plato) in regard to a martyrdom. So we read: http://beityahuwah.blogspot.com/2005/08/plato-stole-his-ideas-from- Plato Stole his ideas from Moses: True or False …. The belief that the philosophers of Greece, including Plato and Aristotle, plagiarized certain of their teaching from Moses and the Hebrew prophets is an argument used by Christian Apologists of Gentile background who lived in the first four centuries of Christians. My comment: I would like to take this a stage further. Just as I have argued in my article: Solomon and Sheba https://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba that the supposed Athenian statesman and lawgiver, Solon, was in fact a Greek appropriation of Israel’s wise lawgiver, Solomon, so do I believe that the primary ‘Ionian’ and ‘Greek’ philosophers of antiquity were actually Greek appropriations of Hebrew sages and prophets. Regarding the supposed “Father of Philosophy”, Thales, for instance, see my article: Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy (4) Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, getting back to the Church Fathers: Three key figures who presented this thesis are Justin Martyr “The most important second¬ century apologist” {50. Grant 1973}, Titus Flavius Clemens known as Clement of Alexandria “the illustrious head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria at the close of the second century, was originally a pagan philosopher” (11, Robert 1857) and is renowned as being possibly the teacher of Origen. He was born either in Alexandria or Athens {Epiphs Haer, xxii.6}. Our final giant who supports this thesis is Eusebius of Caesarea known as the father of Church history. Each of these in their defense of the Christian faith presented some form of the thesis that the philosophers of Greece learned from the prophets of Israel. Our interest in this paper is on the arguments of the earliest of these writers, Justin Martyr. He represents the position of Christian apology in the middle of the second century, as opposed to the later Clement of Alexandria and the even later Eusebius of Caesarea. In light of the stature and the credibility of these three Church Fathers even if the idea that Plato learned from Moses seems far fetched we would do well to take a closer look at the argument and the evidence presented by such men of stature. Justin was a philosopher who came from a pagan background. He issued from Shechem in Palestine. He was a marvelous scholar in his own right well read and well qualified to make informed judgments in the arena of philosophy. Our purpose is to briefly look at the theses presented by Justin Martyr and to try to discern the plausibility of the thesis. Justin Martyr and the line Plato took from Moses. My comment on this section: If the great Plato is to be restored as a (perhaps composite) biblical sage, along the lines of characters e.g. my article: Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction (3) Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu as I think eventually he must be, then this would be not so much a case of Greeks plagiarising the Scriptures as of a biblical wise man (the original Plato) keeping alive the Mosaïc Law and Tradition. The article continues with a biography of Justin Martyr: Justin Martyr was a prolific second century Apologist. He was born in Flavia Neapolis (Shechem) in Samaria. Well known for the local Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim and a temple built by Hadrian to Zeus Hypsistos. He later passed through Stoicism and the way of Aristotle’s disciples the Peripatetics and was rejected as unqualified to study Pythagoreanism and finally he met a Platonist with whom he advanced in his studies. To him the goal of Platonism was “the vision of God”. One day he met a Christian on the beach and was converted to the faith. He did not become a priest or bishop but took to teaching and defending the faith. Text He wrote many works and many more bear his name. However modern scholarship has judged that of the many works that bear his name only three are considered genuine. These are 2 Apologies and the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. They are preserved in one manuscript of the year 1364 (Cod Par, gr. 450). Language Justin wrote in Greek, and right in the middle of the period of philosophy called Middle Platonism. The book in which he outlines his thesis that Moses and the prophets were a source for the Greek Philosophers is his first Apology. It is dated to 155-157 BC and was addressed to “The Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antonius Pius Caesar Augustus, and the sons Verissimus, philosopher, philosopher, and Lucius” Grant (52, 1973). My comment: I would seriously contest these conventional dates for Imperial Rome, given my view that the so-called ‘Second’ Jewish revolt against Rome was (at least in part) the actual Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Greeks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is here that Justin makes a most interesting and intriguing statement rallying Plato to the side of Moses and Isaiah, in the eyes of the son of the Emperor whom he calls philosophers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The article continues with the writings of Justin Martyr: Context Grant (1973) believes the reason which triggered the Apology was the martyrdom of Polycarp in 156 AD and the injustice of it during the bishopric of Anicetus. Even as this martyrdom and its report may have spurred Justin on to write so it had been that it was on seeing the fortitude of the Christian martyrs which had disposed him favorably towards the faith (Ap 2.12.1). …. In the Apology 1 Justin gives the reason for his writing “I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition on behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused; my self being one of them” (Apology 1 chap). The Apology 1 is divided into 60 chapters. The translation we are using is that of the Ante Nicene Fathers and can be seen at www.ccel.org The topics covered are many. He starts in chapter 2 by demanding justice, he requires that before the Christians are condemned they should be given a fair trial to see if they have committed any crimes or not. They should not be condemned merely for being Christian. He covers many subjects including: the accusation Christians were Atheists, faith in God; the Kingdom of Christ; God’s service; demonic teachings; Christ’s teachings and heathen analogies to it; non Christian worship; magic; exposing children, the Hebrew prophets and their prophecies about Christ, types of prophetic words from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This brings us to about chapter 38. At this point Justin begins to cover the issue of determinism and free will. He argues that although the future was prophesied it does not mean everything is determined according to fate and man has no responsibility for he has no choice. Rather he points to Moses revealing God’s choice to Adam “Behold before thy face are good and evil: choose the good”. (Apol 1 44) And he quotes lsaiah’s appeal to Israel to wash and be clean and the consequences of doing so or not doing so. The consequences of disobedience are that the sword would devour Israel. Justin picks up on the statement regarding the sword and argues that it is not a literal sword which is referred to but “the sword of God is a fire, of which those who choose to do wickedly will become the fuel” (Apol 1 44). Justin having appealed to Moses and Isaiah as a warning to the Roman rulers now appeals to one with whom they are more familiar, Plato the philosopher, to support his case that man is free to choose good or evil. It is here that Justin makes a most interesting and intriguing statement rallying Plato to the side of Moses and Isaiah, in the eyes of the son of the Emperor whom he calls philosophers. And so, too, Plato, when he says, “The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless” took this from the prophet Moses and uttered it. For Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers. And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things. And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men; but they are charged with not accurately understanding [the truth] when they assert contradictories. …. He appears to be making the claim that Plato who has “exerted a greater influence over human thought than any other individual with the possible exception of Aristotle” (Demos, 1927.vi) was dependent for his understanding of freewill and responsibility on Moses. The saying “the blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless (Aitia helomenou Theos d’ anaios) {Joann. Mdcccxlii, 224}” was taken from Moses by Plato and uttered it {eipe}”. [End of quote] Plato and Job The combined story of Job and his alter ego, Tobias, son of Tobit Prophet Job not an enlightened Gentile (4) Prophet Job not an enlightened Gentile | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu has had a profound influence upon worldwide literature, both ancient and modern. To give just one example, see my article: Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit https://www.academia.edu/8914220/Similarities_to_The_Odyssey_of_the_Books_of_Job_and_Tobit And, as already implied, I believe that this biblical story has also had a huge influence upon ancient (supposedly Greco-Roman) philosophy, which, however, significantly alters the original version. For, whilst there can be a similarity in thought between Plato and, for example, the Book of Job, the tone may be quite different. Plato’s Republic, and his other dialogues such as Protagoras and Meno, brilliant though they may be in places, when compared with the intense atmosphere of the drama of the Book of Job, come across sometimes as a bit like a gentlemen’s discussion over a glass of port. W. Guthrie may have captured something of this general tone in his Introduction to Plato. Protagoras and Meno (Penguin, 1968), when he wrote (p. 20, emphasis added): … a feature of the conversation which cannot fail to strike a reader is its unbroken urbanity and good temper. The keynote is courtesy and forbearance, though these are not always forthcoming without a struggle. Socrates is constantly on the alert for the signs of displeasure on the part of Protagoras, and when he detects them, is careful not to press his point, and the dialogue ends with mutual expressions of esteem. …. [End of quote] Now compare this gentlemanly tone with Job’s ‘How long will you torment me, and break me in pieces with words? These ten times you have cast reproach upon me; are you not ashamed to wrong me?’ (19:1-3), and Eliphaz’s accusations of the holy man: ‘Is not your wickedness great? There is no end to your iniquities [which supposed types of injustice on the part of Job Eliphaz then proceeds to itemise]’ (22:5). In Plato’s dialogues, by way of complete contrast, we get pages and pages of the following sort of amicable discussion as taken from The Republic (Bk. 2, 368-369): [Socrates] ‘Justice can be a characteristic of an individual or of a community, can it not?’ [Adeimantus] ‘Yes’. [Socrates] ‘And a community is larger than an individual?’ [Adeimantus] ‘It is”. [Socrates] ‘We may therefore find that the amount of justice in the larger entity is greater, and so easier to recognize. I accordingly propose that we start our enquiry …’. [Adeimantus] ‘That seems a good idea’, he agreed. ….

Josephus has four versions of Judas Maccabeus thinking they were all different persons

by Damien F. Mackey Though it is not apparent from the Gospels that a War was raging during the Infancy of Jesus Christ (the Holy Family was safely hidden in Egypt), I would expect that there was. The first version, found in Antiquities Book XII, is basically recognisable from what we read about the Jewish Revolt against the Macedonian Seleucids in I-II Maccabees. The second version - Roman era presumably - found early in Antiquities Book XVII, provides us with an account of the Revolt against King Herod, late in life, by the Jewish pair, Matthias and Judas. Compare Mattathias and his son, Judas Maccabeus. This continues over in to the time of Herod’s son, Archelaus, whom Saint Joseph feared on the Family’s return from Egypt (Matthew 2:19-21). This is what Gamaliel was talking about, “Judas the Galilean at the time of the Census”. The Census, the one that greets us at the beginning of Luke 2 (:1-3): Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain” (4) Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2's "rock cut out of a mountain" | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In conventional terms, about 170 years separate these incidents, Mattathias and Judas Maccabeus, on the one hand, and Matthias and Judas the Galilean, on the other. In my scheme, they pertain to precisely the same events. This is only some several decades before the estimated birth of Josephus (c. 37 AD). How come, then, that he has it all so badly tangled up? Though it is not apparent from the Gospels that a War was raging during the Infancy of Jesus Christ (the Holy Family was safely hidden in Egypt), I would expect that there was: Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus (4) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And this is borne out further in: The third version, found later in Antiquities Book XVII. Athronges, Josephus’s new name for Judas (without his realising it). Again, it was the time of Archelaus, son of Herod. …. 7. But because Athronges, a person neither eminent by the dignity of his progenitors; nor for any great wealth he was possessed of; but one that had in all respects been a shepherd only [were he and his 4 brothers shepherd priests at the time of the Nativity?] , and was not known by any body: yet because he was a tall man [Maccabees likens Judas to “a giant”], and excelled others in the strength of his hands, he was so bold as to set up for King. This man thought it so sweet a thing to do more than ordinary injuries to others, that although he should be killed, he did not much care if he lost his life in so great a design. He had also four brethren,20 who were tall men themselves, and were believed to be superior to others in the strength of their hands; and thereby were encouraged to aim at great things, and thought that strength of theirs would support them in retaining the Kingdom. Each of these ruled over a band of men of their own. For those that got together to them were very numerous. They were every one of them also commanders. But when they came to fight, they were subordinate to him, and fought for him. While he put a diadem about his head, and assembled a council to debate about what things should be done, and all things were done according to his pleasure. And this man retained his power a great while: he was also called King; and had nothing to hinder him from doing what he pleased. He also, as well as his brethren, slew a great many both of the Romans [???], and of the King’s forces; and managed matters with the like hatred to each of them. The King’s forces they fell upon, because of the licentious conduct they had been allowed under Herod’s government: and they fell upon the Romans, because of the injuries they had so lately received from them. But in process of time they grew more cruel to all sorts of men. Nor could any one escape from one or other of these seditions. Since they slew some out of the hopes of gain; and others from a mere custom of slaying men. They once attacked a company of Romans at Emmaus; who were bringing corn and weapons to the army: and fell upon Arius, the centurion, who commanded the company, and shot forty of the best of his foot soldiers. But the rest of them were affrighted at their slaughter, and left their dead behind them, but saved themselves by the means of Gratus; who came with the King’s troops that were about him to their assistance. Now these four brethren continued the war a long while, by such sort of expeditions: and much grieved the Romans; but did their own nation also a great deal of mischief. Yet were they afterwards subdued. …. It sure beats Gamaliel’s miserable account of Judas the Galilean at least (Acts 5:37). The fourth version, also found in Antiquities Book XVII, seems to be simply a duplication of Judas the Galilean at the time of the Census. Certain scholars, at least, identify the two as one (see next): https://www.geni.com/people/Judas-the-Zealot-of-Gamala/6000000005747693711 …. Leader of a popular revolt against the Romans at the time when the first census was taken in Judea, in which revolt he perished and his followers were dispersed (Acts v. 37); born at Gamala in Gaulonitis (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 1, § 1). In the year 6 or 7 C.E., when Quirinus came into Judea to take an account of the substance of the Jews, Judas, together with Zadok, a Pharisee, headed a large number of Zealots and offered strenuous resistance (ib. xviii. 1, § 6; xx. 5, § 2; idem, "B. J." ii. 8, § 1). Judas proclaimed the Jewish state as a republic recognizing God alone as king and ruler and His laws as supreme. The revolt continued to spread, and in some places serious conflicts ensued. Even after Judas had perished, his spirit continued to animate his followers. Two of his sons, Jacob and Simon, were crucified by Tiberius Alexander ("Ant." xx. 5, § 2); another son, Menahem, became the leader of the Sicarii and for a time had much power; he was finally slain by the high-priestly party ("B. J." ii. 17, §§ 8-9). Grätz ("Gesch." iii. 251) and Schürer ("Gesch." i. 486) identify Judas the Galilean with Judas, son of Hezekiah the Zealot, who, according to Josephus ("Ant." xvii. 10, § 5; "B. J." ii. 4, § 1), led a revolt in the time of Quintilius Varus. He took possession of the arsenal of Sepphoris, armed his followers, who were in great numbers, and soon became the terror of the Romans. When did the Romans come to Judah? This present article has arisen from a discussion I have recently had with a colleague in which we were trying to determine when the Greek (Seleucid) hold over Judah ceased, and the Romans took over – presuming that this is what actually happened. That I have trouble with the conventional view of the Romans for this period will be apparent to readers of my article: Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible (4) Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu To my suggestion that Josephus, a political animal, had a political agenda, my colleague replied (26/04/2024): Everyone has biases and agendas. That much can be tolerated by the discerning reader. I mean whether he is reliable witness to basic historical events. For instance I could read a newspaper columnist with whom I vehemently disagree but he is going to be working from the same basic historical backdrop - that Anthony Albanese is the prime minister etc. So, if Josephus is a witnesses to 1st century events and he says the Romans destroyed the Temple - then biases and agendas aside - I'd say that's how it went down. …. This led me to summarise some of my reasons for my minimilisation of the Romans: …. Sounds reasonable. But when do the Romans come into the Judean picture? …. Augustus writes a decree to the whole Roman world. Except, the word Roman is not there. The Romans in Maccabees are allies of the Jews, not invaders. They promise the world, but Judas, then Jonathan, then Simon, all die violently. What happened to the Roman promise of intervention? There are Roman centurions in the Bible. Except, the word Roman is not there. And a Greek word (hekatóntarkhos), not centurion (centurio), is used. We know from history that there was a Jewish centurion in the pagan army. May have been others. My tip is that the centurion (?) Jesus praised was Jewish. No Faith like this in Israel, a builder of a synagogue. Would a Roman centurion build a synagogue? Pilate writes in Hebrew, Greek, Latin (at least Fr. Brian Harrison reckons that that is the proper order). Why Greek, before Latin? Both Pontius and Pilate can also be Greek words. Caiaphas (from memory) warns that the Romans might come - the only solitary mention of them I have found (except for Maccabees) before Paul. If they might come, then does that mean that they are not actually there? Revelation does not name Greek or Roman invaders by those words. Gog and Magog get a look in late. In Ezekiel 38, 39, Gog and Magog refer to the Macedonian Seleucids and their array - and, specifically, to the showdown between Judas and Nicanor. Hence why I have remained non-commital thus far. (That is not to say that the Jewish Revolt ending in 70 AD was not against Rome. I don't know). …. Name “Athronges” As I noted in my “Religious war …” article (above): We can even connect the name, Athronges, thought to mean a “citron” (etrog), to the Maccabees, once it is appreciated that the wrongly-named Second Jewish Revolt was actually that of the Maccabees. See e.g. my article: An academic exchange regarding Hadrian and the Bar Kochba revolt (DOC) An academic exchange regarding Hadrian and the Bar Kochba revolt | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu For: https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/was-jesus-of-nazareth-a-jewish-nationalist-53d2b082c9 In 132–135 [sic], the last Jewish leader, Simon bar Kokhba, attempted a final uprising in the hope of restoring Judea’s independence. On his coins, he minted the facade of the temple destroyed sixty years earlier [sic]. We also see a bouquet (lulab) and a citron (etrog), symbols of the traditional cult that Simon intended to restore. We can also read the slogan of the revolt, written in Hebrew: “For the freedom of Jerusalem.” ….

Robert Cornuke’s book, Temple, a game-changer

“Cornuke garners convincing evidence that the Temple was actually located to the southwest of the Temple Mount on a smaller piece of real estate, within the Old City of David and with access to the Gihon Spring”. Ed Vasicek https://sharperiron.org/article/review-temple-amazing-new-discoveries-change-everything-about-location Review - Temple: Amazing New Discoveries That Change Everything About the Location of Solomon's Temple Ed Vasicek Wed, 04/06/16 12:00 am Many of us recognize Robert Cornuke as the man whom many believe discovered the real Mt. Sinai. Damien F. Mackey’s comment: I think that a far better option for the: True Mount Sinai (2) True Mount Sinai | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu is professor Emmanuel Anati’s identification of Har Karkom, near the Paran desert. The Review continues: [Cornuke] is also president of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration Institute, and has been featured on major television networks including ABC, FOX, CNN, National Geographic, and the History Channel; he received his PhD from Louisiana Baptist University. What I especially appreciate about the author is that he begins with complete confidence in the Scripture. If accepted tradition contradicts Scripture, Cornuke’s game is afoot. Dr. Cornuke, in a few pages, argues convincingly that the Temple was built in the old City of David—as he documents the Bible avows—rather than atop what has been wrongly dubbed the “Temple Mount.” Cornuke quotes a number of passages that equate Zion with both the Temple and the City of David. Since the “Temple Mount” sits outside the old City of David, Zion and the Temple Mount cannot be one and the same. What we call the Temple Mount, he argues, is actually the plateau built by the Romans for the Fortress Antonia. The Romans built their fortresses at the highest elevation possible, building a plateau akin to the “Temple Mount.” Damien F. Mackey’s comment: On this, see e.g. my article: Fortress of Antonia (2) Fortress of Antonia | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu [Cornuke] argues a convincing case, offering a variety of evidences from the biblical texts, formally recorded history (especially Josephus—whom those who accept the Temple Mount as the true location—believe erred), ancient eyewitness accounts, and both older and very recent archaeological findings (2013). The Review continues: Herod’s Temple was so thoroughly destroyed that all traces of it have vanished. Damien F. Mackey’s comment: What Herod’s Temple? The Review continues: Ancient pilgrims postulated that the Temple had been built on the highest part of the city, and thus dubbed that location the “Temple Mount.” Cornuke garners convincing evidence that the Temple was actually located to the southwest of the Temple Mount on a smaller piece of real estate, within the Old City of David and with access to the Gihon Spring. Although Herod’s Temple was destroyed without a trace—as Jesus predicted in Matthew 24:2— Damien F. Mackey’s comment: What Herod’s Temple? It was Zerubbabel’s Temple. — apparent remnants of Solomon’s Temple are evident underneath the suggested City of David location. The book actually contains a few photos of this subterranean archaeology. This is not just an attempt at sensationalism, but a generally logical, thoroughly argued case that will appeal to readers open to consider this possibility. The evidence leads me, personally, to embrace Cornice’s conclusion. … Getting back to the book itself, part one is both the real meat and bulk of the book: “The Temple.” Although not all arguments in this section are equally compelling, a number of them are quite so. Parts 2 and 3 (the future Temples and the Ark of the Covenant) make a few logical leaps, although I agree with his basic outline. …. Make no mistake about it: this book is monumental. Its tight and compelling case for locating the Temple in the City of David (not the Temple Mount) is persuasive and positioned to become a popular viewpoint. The author does repeat himself quite a bit, but this reinforces his points and will help readers who might otherwise find the subject confusing. The average layperson can readily understand this book. It is fascinating and the type of book that could become a “game changer.” Read also: https://planthopeisrael.com/a-secret-treasure-in-jerusalem/ A Secret Treasure in Jerusalem by Jennifer GuettaSep 7, 2018Archaeology, Blog Article, History, Messiah IN Archaeology …. Hidden away a few meters above the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem is perhaps the greatest discovery ever found in Israel. Strangely, not many people know about it. It is older and more spectacular than anything I have seen in Jerusalem. And very crucial for both the Old and New Testament. “Whatever is covered up will be uncovered, and every secret will be made known.” (Luke 12:2 GNT) A few years ago archaeologist Eli Shukron uncovered the remains of an ancient sacred site just above the spring in the City of David dating from the time of Melchizedek up to the time of the kingdom of Judah (MB-Iron Age). The area includes four small rooms aligned next to each other. To the far right is a small room with an olive press in front of it, for making oil. Immediately to its right is another room with at the back a small square altar or “table” with along the side a long drainage channel, possible used to drain off blood. On the other end of the building is another room with strange V- shaped markings in the floor which the excavator interprets as used for placing a wooden installation to hold animals that were being prepared for sacrifice. In the walls are even cut holes to tie the cords to hold the animals. But the most incredible find is in the back of the middle room where one upright stone stands straight amidst a foundation of smaller stones: A Biblical “Stele”. According to the excavator the site was definitely used for religious purposes, probably for sacrifice and anointing with oil. Its location above the only spring of Jerusalem and the massive spring tower also seem to be of central importance. Strangely it dates from the Middle Bronze Age into the Iron age and was still in use during Solomon’s Temple. Nothing was found in the area to indicate it was used to serve foreign gods (no figurines, drawings, etc). < Reconstruction drawing of the sacred place by the spring in Jerusalem This was a real sacred place above the spring used during the Bible. The question one immediately asks is: What was such a sacrificial place doing in Jerusalem south of the Temple Mount? Wasn’t all sacrifice only done in the Temple? And what was it doing there so early with continued use into the Israelite period? It makes one wonder. And we don’t have all the answers. What we do know, is that this place was used in Biblical times to sacrifice and probably anoint people and that it was used for ONE God. Visiting this place was the highlight of my trip to Israel. A dream fulfilled. Long ago I heard that Eli Shukron had made a major discovery. I had been to the City of David many times before but did not have the chance in the last few years to see what he found. I did however, travel there in my imagination when I was writing three of my children’s books (all in Dutch). In my first book The Treasure of Zion, the children discover a flat stone in a room above the spring (I did not know about the discovery then!). In my second book, The Secret of the Golden star, the children witness the anointing of King Solomon by the spring. In the third book, The Mystery of the Lion Throne, the children go in search of the Ark of the Covenant and the climax takes place in an underground temple near the spring. I had never been there when I wrote these books but imagined it and used it as the basis for a great adventure. It is perhaps strange but shortly after I wrote the Lion Throne many of the spiritual things which happened to me took place. As if I had uncovered a secret which someone didn’t want exposed. In my books the children are looking for the secret hiding place of the Ark of the Covenant that Solomon had built under the Temple. The Ark represented the very throne of God and His presence dwelled above it. But instead of finding the physical Ark my search for the truth ultimately led me to the greatest treasure of all: The real lions throne, the throne of the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) and He showed me that His presence now lives in people (and no longer above an ark). After I experienced the spiritual world and was confronted with witchcraft, I had to admit that the invisible realm was very real and in it there are two kingdoms, light and dark. I also learned that Jesus is truly alive and had all authority over the darkness and there was a reason that darkness listened to His name. He rescued me from kabbala and witchcraft and brought me into His kingdom of light. It is a long story, but in the end God cornered the archaeologist. After I gave my life to Jesus I also gave up the dream of ever going to the place that had inspired me for so long. But the Lord knows our dreams and hearts desires. He remembered, and blessed me by letting me go there with my mom and two sisters on Good Friday, the day we remember the greatest sacrifice ever made. The day that all other animal sacrifices were no longer necessary. The day His blood flowed for us and paid the price to set us completely free. The Lord had blessed me even more by letting Eli Shukron guide us through his discovery. It was early Friday morning 2016. The sun was shining and we were filled with anticipation as we followed Eli through the streets of the Old City. Along the way we talked about the real location of the Via Dolorosa, the road Jesus walked with the cross. Archaeologically it is a contested route and he showed us some of the places where archaeologists think it took place. Then we turned south towards the City of David. Tears filled my eyes when we descended along the steep hill. I felt like I was visiting there for the first time, but I wasn’t. I was not the same person I was before. It felt like everything was different. But it wasn’t. It was me that had changed, and these old stones had stayed the same. We followed Eli into a well secured area, behind a fence and he took out a key. Then we entered into a dark cave, with wooden beams holding up the ceiling. Built into the bedrock, along the side of the hill, we saw four small rooms. I was amazed how well the walls were preserved. It’s funny how things often look different than we imagined. But this was more beautiful than I could have dreamed of. Then Eli took out another set of keys and opened a steel box at the back of one of the rooms. The doors swung open. Behind it was an upright stone set in smaller stones. I gasped in awe. A stone of covenant You might think… It’s just a stone! What is so special about a stone? In the Bible there are many stories about stones marking a covenant between God and the people. For example the story of Jacob at Bethel: “Early the next morning Jacob took the stone he had placed under his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on top of it.” (Genesis 28:18). Another example is found in Genesis 35:44-46. “So now come, let us make a covenant, you and I, and let it be a witness between you and me.” Then Jacob took a stone and set it up as a pillar. Jacob said to his kinsmen, “Gather stones.” So they took stones and made a heap, and they ate there by the heap.…” And here is another: “So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made for them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God; and he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak that was by the sanctuary of the LORD. Joshua said to all the people, “Behold, this stone shall be for a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD which He spoke to us; thus it shall be for a witness against you, so that you do not deny your God” (Josh. 24:26) Upright stones were symbols of a covenant between God and man. They are also called “stele” and are well known in Israel. Archaeologists have found them throughout the country, usually in combination with other stones. But never in Jerusalem. And never only ONE. This stone represented a relationship between ONE God and the people. The stone was also set up to make a vow, a reminder of a covenant. In the Bible when such a covenant was made there was often a meal right after with wine and bread, partaking of the feast upon the sacrifice. Even King Josiah when he called the people to renew their vow to the Lord made them stand by a pillar in Jerusalem and renewed there their covenant with the Lord. “And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant” 2 kings 23:3 Now, I was staring at a real upright stone in Jerusalem placed purposely above the spring, next to a sacrifice area, and an olive press for anointing oil. I was in awe of being in such a place and was reminded that this was also Good Friday and it was almost 12:00 , the hour that the Romans erected the cross that Jesus hung on. I gazed at the small altar of sacrifice with the channel for blood next to it. In today’s society it sounds awful and one wonders why sacrifices were necessary. It is strange concept. That blood has to flow. However, in the Bible God is very clear about it. “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” (Leviticus 17:11). Blood had to flow to pay for the atonement of sin. In Genesis God said very clearly: “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:17). When man sinned, they were excommunicated from God and the punishment for sin was death. In the Old Testament animals died in our place. A lamb was slaughtered to atone for our sins. One died for the other. I looked at the small square altar and wondered how many poor animals were sacrificed here for us. They did nothing wrong. They were perfect without blemish. Some archaeologists and rabbi’s think the idea of atonement is purely pagan, because it is also found in many other religions, including ancient Assyria. But it is not pagan! It is very biblical, Jewish, and it is just how the spiritual world works. Therefore it can be seen in religions all over the world. Because in the spirit world there is a price to be paid. When Jesus died on the cross He paid the price once and for all and thankfully places like this were no longer necessary to sacrifice animals. It is through this concept that we can understand what John said when he said to Jesus: “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). In the order of Melchizedek Already several weeks ago the Lord had put it in my heart to bring bread and wine to the underground sacred area above the spring and to renew my covenant here with him and remember what He had done for us on this day. We were four women coming back to a place that probably had a very important meaning for the people in the Bible. It was the first time in 2500 years that this place was used again. We came and dedicated this sacrificial place of Jerusalem to the Messiah, the lamb of God, who gave himself as the greatest sacrifice of all. What I didn’t know was that Melchizedek, the high priest of Jerusalem had also brought forth bread and wine when he met Abraham. And the Messiah Yeshua/Jesus was priest in the order of Melchizedek. “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.” Hebrews 5:6 “Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram”, Genesis 14:18-19 The Bible says Melchizedek was the priest of Salem (Jerusalem) long before the Temple existed. And he was priest of the Most High. The story of Melchizedek shows that long before David conquered Jerusalem this was a place dedicated to the MOST HIGH. Here we were, standing by a stone that had been purposely placed here to remember a covenant made between God and people, most likely dating from the time of Melchizedek (The Middle Bronze age). It was still in use during the time of David and Solomon and probably all the kings of Judah. The Bible describes that Melchizedek, the original high priest of Jerusalem brought forth bread and wine to Abraham, probably making a covenant with him and transferring his power to Abraham. < V-shaped groves probably used for a wooden installation to hold the animals for sacrifice. On this day 2000 years ago, the Messiah, the priest in the order of Melchizedek, gave an ultimate sacrifice: His life. By doing so he paid with his own blood the sins of the world, so that man could be restored and have a relationship with God again. He also destroyed the powers of the darkness completely, bringing light and hope back into the world. A few hours after His death, the Jews celebrated Passover, a great meal of covenant with four cups of wine. The night before, during the last supper, Jesus had shown his disciples how to celebrate Passover from now in commemoration of him. He did not drink the fourth cup and said He would drink it when his kingdom would come. Three days after his death Jesus rose from the dead and His kingdom is now in us. Therefore he longs to drink this cup with us. As I opened the bottle of wine and filled a cup, I remembered how Jesus had literally set me free from the bondage of witchcraft. How he liberated us and defeated the darkness. I remembered how exactly one year earlier we had celebrated His victory with 400 people during the biggest Passover Holland had ever seen. In that year (2015) Good Friday and Passover were on the same day, as they were many years ago, before time had distorted our conceptions. It was a great meal of covenant and also a call back to God. Now we were here on this location breaking bread and drinking wine in the place where an original covenant had been made between God and the people, repeating our own vow. We said the blessing over the wine and repeated the Lords words: “Do this in remembrance of me.” And we passed the cup around as if he himself invited us to His table in his kingdom. The wine is the symbol of the blood which flowed at Calvary. The blood of the lamb of Passover that was placed on the doors of the houses of the Israelites, as the darkness passed them by. The blood on the door of our hearts which forever makes sure that darkness passes us by. Then we broke the bread and said again: “Do this in remembrance of Him.” And shared it one with another. Just as Melchizedek had done to Abraham, Jesus hands us His cup and was also transferring His power to us, and gave us all authority over the darkness. The stone of remembrance is still locked away in Jerusalem in the secret hiding place. It has been rededicated to the high priest in the order of Melchizedek, Yeshua, the Messiah of Israel. Hopefully, it’s message of covenant and redemption will now go back into the world and to Jerusalem. If you are visiting Israel and would like to see it you can contact Eli Shukron: www.elishukron.com ….

Evidence found of the Temple of Yahweh that King Solomon built in Jerusalem

“[Eli] Shukron led us about forty feet underground into the well-secured area. …. The site has grooves cut into that bedrock for an olive press and sacrifice tables, and loops cut into the walls presumably to secure animals. Slightly uphill and to the left of the olive press is a long channel cut into the floor most likely designed to drain off blood”. Dr. Frank Turek Dr. Frank Turek has given a dramatic, and optimistic, title to his 2014 article: https://crossexamined.org/jewish-temple-may-prevent-world-war-iii/ WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2014 THE JEWISH TEMPLE THAT MAY PREVENT WORLD WAR III • By Frank Turek |Israel is the most contested piece of real estate in the world. And the most contested piece of real estate within Israel is the temple mount in the old city of Jerusalem. Nearly every Jew believes that the Muslim Dome of the Rock, which dominates that thirty-six acre site, sits on the spot of all previous Jewish Temples, including the last one destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. Some Jews and Christians believe that the temple must be and will be rebuilt on that spot. Therein lies the problem. Can you think of a faster way to start World War III? Thankfully, new evidence is just coming to light that might reveal a more peaceful solution. The Jewish Temple may not have been on the Temple Mount but just outside the current walls of the old city. I had the privilege of seeing this evidence several days ago along with a few others participating on our CrossExamined.org trip to Israel. Our guide was the man who uncovered the new evidence: Israeli archaeologist Eli Shukron. Since 1995, Shukron has been digging up the twelve-acre area called the City of David that [just] out from the southern wall of the old city of Jerusalem. He and his team have removed thousands of tones [sic] of dirt to discover, among other things, the Pool of Siloam where Jesus healed a blind person (John 9:7), and the once impenetrable fortress of the Jebusites that David and his men captured by sneaking up an underground water shaft (2 Sam 5:7-8). Near that water shaft, about 1,000 feet south of the Temple Mount, Shukron discovered the remains of an ancient temple just a few feet from the Gihon Spring. Shukron led us about forty feet underground into the well-secured area. As the lead archaeologist, only he has the key. The excavated area is down to bedrock, which means there was no civilization below it. The site has grooves cut into that bedrock for an olive press and sacrifice tables, and loops cut into the walls presumably to secure animals. Slightly uphill and to the left of the olive press is a long channel cut into the floor most likely designed to drain off blood. Behind it Shukron unlocked a steel box he had built to protect something on the floor. As he swung the doors open, we saw an ancient upright stone (called a “stele”) surrounded by a foundation of smaller stones. “The Bible says Jacob took a stone and put small stones around it, and then put olive oil on top of that stone.” Shukron told me, referring to the stele Jacob erected in the town of Bethel (Genesis 28:18). “It is a connection between Jacob and God—the relationship between them.” Indeed, Jacob called the place he made, “God’s house.” The Jews were known to set up stele to commemorate interactions with God (Gen. 28:18, 31:45, 35:14, Josh. 24:26, 1 Sam. 8:12). But according to Shukron, the stele he discovered is the only one ever found in Jerusalem. Could it mark the actual site of the real Jewish temple—God’s house? “It certainly was a temple from the first temple period (circa 970-586 B.C.),” Shukron said. “But Solomon’s temple was on the Temple Mount.” When I asked him what archeological evidence exists for the Temple Mount site, he offered very little in response. Perhaps the paucity of evidence is due to the political realities that prevent much digging there. On the other hand, quite a compelling case can be made for Solomon’s Temple being at Shukron’s site. My co-host on the trip, Bob Cornuke, makes that case in a fascinating new book called Temple: Amazing New Discoveries that Change Everything About the Location of Solomon’s Temple. Cornuke picks up on the research of the late archaeologist, Ernest L. Martin, who in 1997 suggested that the biblical text and eyewitness evidence from the first century all point to the City of David as the actual temple location. Now there appears to be quite specific archaeological evidence as well. Cornuke and Shukron have been discussing this evidence for the better part of the last year. There are even a couple of pictures in Cornuke’s book from Shukron’s site. You can see those pictures and some of my own here. So why isn’t Shukron suggesting his site is where the temple was? If true, it would be the greatest archaeological discovery of all time! I had dinner with Eli, Bob and a couple of others to discuss that question. First, there is the weight of the consensus site. If the true site is actually in the City of David, just how did the Temple Mount become the dominant site in the first place? Cornuke provides some plausible historical answers in his book. He also shows the text of the Bible and other historical witnesses seem to point to the City of David. Nevertheless, maybe the general consensus in favor of the Temple Mount is correct. Second, as a noted Israeli archaeologist, Shukron would need to evaluate more of the evidence and the opinions of his colleagues before he would ever entertain making a shift on such a monumental question. The Temple Mount is so entrenched in tradition, politics, and Jewish identity—the Western Wall being the holiest Jewish site for prayer—that any shift in opinion would be met with great resistance. It’s not a shift one should make overnight. However, Shukron is open to the possibility. He told us that the location of the Temple is certainly a topic worthy of debate. That debate could be ratcheted up when he presents his findings to a group of archaeologists at a conference in Jerusalem at the end of July. If it’s not Solomon’s Temple, then whose Temple did Shukron discover? When I asked him that question, he just said, “we’ll see.” ….

Jotham’s Parable of Fig and Thorn

“A bramble, or thornbush, was a useless nuisance, the most worthless plant in the Middle East. It produces no fruit, and is too low to the ground to produce any shade. Its wood cannot be used for any kind of construction because it splits too easily. It is good only as fuel for the fire. And this was, of course, the symbol of Abimelech”. https://teachingforsotzambia.com/2019/08/28/from-the-old-testament-jothams-parable-what-does-it-mean/ From the Old Testament: Jotham’s Parable. What does it mean? Posted on August 28, 2019 by admin Whenever we think of parables in the Bible, we often only think of the parables spoken by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament. However, to the surprise of some, there are also several parables in the Old Testament including Jotham’s parable in Judges 9 that sheds considerable light on past and future events in both testaments. His name means “my father is king.” And his father certainly lived like a king, but he refused to establish any form of dynasty in Israel for himself or his sons. It is obvious that Abimelech thought his warrior hero father had made a mistake. He was the son of Gideon by a concubine who lived with her father’s family in Shechem, and he undoubtedly was shunned by his half-brothers. His father was an Israelite, but his mother was a Shechemite. The story of Gideon’s success as a great warrior is riveting and a great testimony unto the Lord. However, his epitaph is shadowed with disappointment. He had missed a great opportunity to bring reform and revival to the land of Israel. Instead of using the moment of his heroism to bring glory to God, he chose instead to profit himself. It is thus recorded, “And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made Baal-Berith their god.” (Judges 8:33) Our story now unfolds. It is interesting that in Judges 9-10, Gideon is always called Jerubbaal, never Gideon. “And Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem unto his mother’s brethren, and communed with them, and with all the family of the house of his mother’s father, saying, Speak, I pray you, in the ears of all the men of Shechem, Whether is better for you, either that all the sons of Jerubbaal, which are threescore and ten persons, reign over you, or that one reign over you? remember also that I am your bone and your flesh.” (Judges 9:1-2) His mother’s brothers pledged allegiance to Abimelech, and they gave him 70 pieces of silver from the house of Baal-Berith to finance a crusade against his 70 half-brothers. In this act he made the public announcement that he had renounced the God of Israel for Baal. With hired men he went to the house of Ophrah and slew all of Gideon’s sons except the youngest Jotham who hid himself in the slaughter. (verses 3-5) “And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of Millo, and went, and made Abimelech king, by the plain of the pillar that was in Shechem.” (verse 6) It is here that in his godlessness and selfish acts Abimelech defiled a place sacred in Jewish history. Beth Millo translates “house of the fortress” and is the section of the upper classes. The word “plain” is ‘elown’ or a “great tree or oak” and is undoubtedly the well-known sacred tree of Moreh (Genesis 12:6; 24:1-5; 35:4; Deut. 11:26-32; Josh 8:30-35; 24:25-26) “And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood in the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you.” (verse 7) Mount Gerizim was a place for blessings to be read (Deut. 27:12, 28), but Jotham’s speech was anything but a blessing. He continues: The Parable of the Trees “The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us. But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us. But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us. And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? (In each case, the trees refused the honor. Each would have to sacrifice something in order to reign and they weren’t prepared to make that sacrifice.) Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us. And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.” (verses 8-14) (A bramble, or thornbush, was a useless nuisance, the most worthless plant in the Middle East. It produces no fruit, and is too low to the ground to produce any shade. Its wood cannot be used for any kind of construction because it splits too easily. It is good only as fuel for the fire. And this was, of course, the symbol of Abimelech.) It is known as the principle of “expositional constancy” whereby the Holy Spirit tends to use the same symbols consistently throughout Scripture. As an example, remember that both Ezekiel 31 and Daniel 4 use trees to symbolize leaders or nations. Last week’s blog cited the “parable of the fig tree.” The Bible clearly uses all four of the trees to reference Israel. How so? The Parable of the Trees Olive Tree represents the Lineage or Genealogy of Israel -produces valuable oil Fig Tree represents Political Israel -produces sweet fruit Vine represents Spiritual Israel -produces wine Bramble represents Satan’s empire/kingdom of darkness -no fruit -only good as fuel for the fire Jotham had clearly made his point. If you read chapters 9-10 Abimelech, the “bramble king” would be unable to protect the people and would cause judgment to come that would destroy those who trust in him. After three conditional clauses, this was a prophecy and a curse. In its fulfillment, both Abimelech and his followers would destroy one another (literally in verse 57) and leading to his ignominious death. Jotham’s parable looks all the way back to Genesis where we are first introduced to thorns being a symbol of the “curse.” In speaking to Adam after the Fall, God says, “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.” (Genesis 3:17b-18) Thorns are a symbol of the “curse” and impending judgement. Throughout the Middle East it is the Acacia bush which is known as “the thorn bush of the desert.” And it is highly likely that this was the type of bush or bramble that Moses encountered at Mount Horeb. “And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.” (Exodus 3:2) It was a burning bush that is not consumed. It is a symbol of grace. Why? Acacia= “thorn bush of the desert” Thorns= symbol of the curse Fire= symbol of judgement Even the writer of Hebrews reveals that thorns were viewed negatively in the ancient cultured and considered a curse. “For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.” (Hebrews 6:7-8) After being mocked, beaten and spat upon by the Roman soldiers, Jesus was crowned with thorns and this highlighted that His suffering and death were a curse. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.” (Hebrews 3:13) When our Lord was crowned with a crown of thorns, His torturers unknowingly punished Him with a symbol fitting of the suffering Messiah. Fortunately for us, Jesus rose from the dead and is gloriously revealed as the King and Savior of this world. Thus, for all who believe, we are not bramble dedicated for destruction. In fact, as Christians we are branches “grafted in” to the Olive Tree and bearing fruit for our Lord. (Romans 11:17-24; Ephesians 2:11-13; 2:19; 3:6) See also my (Damien Mackey’s) article: Jesus Curses the Barren Fig Tree (3) Jesus Curses the Barren Fig Tree | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Mary’s Magnificat partly inspired by the fervent praying of Hannah

“The Virgin Mary also looked up to the godly women she discovered in the pages of Scripture”. Fr. Joseph Gleason Parallels can be found between the prayer (Magnificat) of the Virgin Mary and Hannah’s praying, as Fr. Joseph Gleason has shown in his article, “A Role Model for the Virgin Mary”: https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/a-role-model-for-the-virgin-mary/ “A meditation on Hannah’s contribution to the Magnificat . . . Sometimes we forget that the saints do not arrive to us from heaven, fully-formed. Before Moses parted the sea, he was a little baby in a basket. Before David slew Goliath, he was an unknown little shepherd boy. And before Mary became the mother of God, she was a humble, young Jewish girl, with godly parents, cousins, and friends. And just like any other young girl, she needed good role models to encourage her toward positive spiritual growth. Her most obvious role models were her dad and mom, the saints Joachim and Anna. They both set a good example for their daughter, and they raised her up in the nuture and admonition of the Lord. Mary was also able to look up to her older cousin, Elizabeth. Scripture tells us that Elizabeth was righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Her living relatives were not her only role-models. The Virgin Mary also looked up to the godly women she discovered in the pages of Scripture. As a young Jewish girl, she would have been familiar with the stories of Old Testament heroines such as Miriam, Deborah, Jael, Ruth, Hannah, Judith, and Esther. These holy women provided guidance, by setting godly examples for young women to follow. I have long been intrigued by the close connections shared between Hannah and Mary. They both are godly women who conceived holy children in miraculous ways. After years of barrenness, Hannah fervently prayed for God to give her a child. He heard her prayer, opened her womb, and granted her to become the mother of Samuel, one of Israel’s greatest prophets. As a virgin, Mary was approached by an archangel who told her she would bear a child. She willingly accepted his words and invited the miracle. God regarded her lowliness, and granted her to become the mother of the Lord . . . God incarnate. Hannah’s response was a lovely prayer. Mary’s response was also lovely, and it closely resembles Hannah’s prayer:  Hannah’s heart is strong in the Lord. (1 Sam. 2:1)  Mary’s soul magnifies the Lord. (Luke 1:46)  Hannah rejoices in her salvation. (1 Sam. 2:1)  Mary rejoices in her Savior. (Luke 1:47)  Hannah praises the holiness of God. (1 Sam. 2:2)  Mary praises the holiness of God’s name. (Luke 1:49)  Hannah shuns pride and arrogance. (1 Sam. 2:3)  Mary says God regards lowliness. (Luke 1:48)  Hannah praises God for feeding the hungry, and for emptying those who were formerly full. (1 Sam. 2:5)  Mary praises God for feeding the hungry, and for causing hunger among the rich. (Luke 1:53)  Hannah praises God for exalting poor beggars, causing them to inherit the thrones of princes. (1 Sam. 2:8)  Mary praises God for exalting the lowly, and for casting the mighty off their thrones. (Luke 1:52)  Hannah says the most important thing is to know the Lord. (1 Sam. 2:10)  Mary says that the Lord’s mercy is reserved for those who fear him. (Luke 1:50)  Hannah prophesies the coming of Christ, the Lord’s anointed. (1 Sam. 2:10)  Mary’s entire prayer is in response to Christ’s coming, in her own womb. Just think . . . over 1000 years before Christ, Hannah had already prayed the prayer which would one day inspire Mary to pray the Magnificat. This teaches us that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is not always a bolt from the blue, disconnected from the past. Instead, God routinely works through our families, through our worship, and through our role models. God did not wait until Mary prayed, to inspire the Magnificat. Rather, God started much earlier, when He inspired Hannah’s prayer. He knew that 1000 years hence, a little Jewish girl named Mary would learn about Hannah, and would look up to her as a godly role model. Then, at just the right time, Hannah’s words would grace Mary’s lips. This is how the inspiration of the Holy Spirit works . . . in an organic, long-term, familial way. It is encouraging when we are given opportunities to pray with our children, teach them the Scriptures, and worship with them during the Divine Liturgy. If God is able to reach through a millennium, using Hannah’s example to inspire the heart of Mary, then He is able to do the same for us and for our children. The spiritual seeds we plant are watered by our prayers, and the Holy Spirit will cause them to sprout at just the right time. …”.

How we should be toward one another

“Francis explained that the foot-washing was “not folklore” but a “gesture which announces how we should be toward one another.” He lamented that “others profit off each other, (there is) so much injustice ... so many ugly things”. Pope washes feet in Holy Thursday rite at Rome youth prison BY FRANCES D’EMILIO Published 1:02 PM GMT+11, April 7, 2023 VATICAN CITY (AP) — In a Holy Thursday ritual symbolizing humility, Pope Francis washed and dried the feet of a dozen residents of a Rome juvenile prison, assuring them of their dignity and telling them “any of us” can fall into sin. The Casal del Marmo facility on the outskirts of Rome is the same juvenile prison where Francis performed the first feet-washing ritual of his papacy, demonstrating his belief that the Catholic Church should give attention to people living on society’s margins. On Thursday, Francis repeated the ritual on 10 male and two female residents who are serving time at the facility. He leaned over and poured water on one foot of each, then used a white towel to gently pat the foot dry before kissing it. When Francis looked up at them in turn to smile, they shook his hand and kissed it. Many of the young people whispered into the pope’s ear, and he chatted with them briefly in return. The ritual recalls the foot-washing Jesus performed on his 12 apostles at their last supper together before he would be taken away to be crucified. Jesus “washes all our feet,” Francis told several dozen residents assembled in the prison chapel. “He knows all our weaknesses,’' the pope said in a completely improvised homily. Among the 12, six were minors while the others had become adults while serving their sentences. The dozen included a Muslim from Senegal, as well as young people from Romania, Russia and Croatia, the Vatican said. Francis explained that the foot-washing was “not folklore” but a “gesture which announces how we should be toward one another.” He lamented that “others profit off each other, (there is) so much injustice...so many ugly things.” Still, he said, “any one of us can slip” and fall from grace. The foot-washing “confers on us the dignity of being sinners.” The lesson, he added, should be to “help one another, so life becomes better.” The pontiff, who has a chronic knee problem, navigated the small spaces of the chapel either unaided or with the help of a cane, although he used a wheel chair to leave after the roughly 90-minute appearance. On Saturday, Francis was discharged from a Rome hospital where he was treated for bronchitis. The Vatican said at the time that he would carry out the complete Holy Week schedule, including the Good Friday late-night Way of the Cross procession at Rome’s Colosseum and Easter Sunday Mass in St. Peter’s Square. Earlier Thursday, he presided over Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica as part of his stamina-testing Holy Week appointments. At Thursday’s basilica Mass, dozens of rows of priests in simple white cassocks sat in front of rank-and-file Catholics in the packed church. Francis used the homily as a pep talk to priests, after decades of scandals involving sex abuse of children by clergy caused many faithful to lose trust in their pastors. The pope didn’t cite the scandals or church hierarchy cover-ups. But, he spoke of “crisis” affecting priests. “Sooner or later, we all experience disappointment, frustration and our own weaknesses,’' Francis said. “Our ideals seem to recede in the face of reality, a certain force of habit takes over, and the difficulties that once seemed unimaginable appear to challenge our fidelity.” The basilica ceremony traditionally includes the blessing of ointments and priests’ renewal of promises made when they were ordained to the priesthood. Highlighting the spirit of renewal that the pope indicated the priesthood needs, added to the ointments at this year’s Mass was bergamot perfume that came from trees in southern Italy on land confiscated by authorities from mobsters. In off-the-cuff remarks during the homily, Francis admonished priests not to “forget being pastors of the people.” https://apnews.com/article/pope-holy-thursday-vatican-footwashing-b70a4c6beeb03e811825f6c352d39c57