by
Damien F. Mackey
“When one analyzes the parable, this Eleazar can be identified. He was one who must have had some kind of affinity with Abraham (or the Abrahamic covenant), for the parable places him in Abraham’s bosom after death”.
Dr. Ernest L. Martin
The only Parable of Jesus in which he actually attaches a personal name to one of its characters is the one that has come to be known as “Dives and Lazarus”.
Dr. Ernest L. Martin, who, I believe, came to light with a right historical interpretation of this Parable (see my):
Abraham and Eleazer: ‘Rich Man and Lazarus’ Parable
(3) Abraham and Eleazer: 'Rich Man and Lazarus' Parable | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
had duly noted that:
https://www.godfire.net/Lazarus_And_The_Rich_Man-Martin.htm
This is the only time in Christ’s parables that a person’s name is used. Some have imagined that this use of a personal name precludes the story being a parable. But this is hardly true. The name "Lazarus" is a transliteration of the Hebrew "Eleazar" (which means "God has helped"). The name was a common Hebrew word used for eleven different persons in the Old Testament.
When one analyzes the parable, this Eleazar can be identified. He was one who must have had some kind of affinity with Abraham (or the Abrahamic covenant), for the parable places him in Abraham’s bosom after death. ….
Could any other of the Gospel parables also have its basis in historical fact?
Perhaps so.
Here, for instance, I am interested in what Jesus had to say in Luke 14:31: ‘Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down [to take counsel] and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand?’
Did this actually happen in the memory of Israel?
Hundreds of years prior to the time of Jesus Christ on earth, early in the reign of Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, there occurred this dramatic incident, which might just possibly be matchable to the brief Lucan text:
2 Chronicles 12:1-4:
After Rehoboam’s position as king was established and he had become strong, he and all Israel with him abandoned the Law of the Lord. Because they had been unfaithful to the Lord, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem in the fifth year of King Rehoboam. With twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen and the innumerable troops of Libyans, Sukkites and Cushites that came with him from Egypt, he captured the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem.
The corresponding account in I Kings does not give any numbers regarding the actual size of the pharaonic army (14:22-25):
Judah did evil in the eyes of the Lord. By the sins they committed they stirred up his jealous anger more than those who were before them had done. They also set up for themselves high places, sacred stones and Asherah poles on every high hill and under every spreading tree. There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.
In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem.
The numbers given in the 2 Chronicles account, totalling a possible 100,000, would seem to me to be by far too large. Thanks to Dr. I. Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952), we know who this biblical Pharaoh was: Thutmose III.
See my modification of this in:
The Shishak Redemption
(7) The Shishak Redemption | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
and:
Yehem near Aruna – Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem
(7) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Thutmose III is generally estimated to have brought a more realistic 10,000 – 20,000 strong army on this campaign:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/thutmose-iii
Just a few months after coming to power, Thutmose III marched with an army of 20,000 soldiers to Megiddo, in modern-day northern Israel ….
https://www.pbs.org/empires/egypt/newkingdom/tuthmosis3.html
He enlisted 20,000 soldiers - either voluntarily or by force - and trained them for an attack on Megiddo.
https://www.camrea.org/tag/thutmose-iii/
The size of Thutmose's army at Megiddo is unknown, as the Annals are silent. Estimates suggest that his army was between 5,000-20,000 troops.
https://www.tripsinegypt.com/battle-of-megiddo/
… Thutmose gathered a massive army between 10,000 and 20,000 men consisting of charioteers and infantry while the enemy’s army consisted of the same number of troops and weaponry.
This puts the numbers in far better correlation with what we have read in Luke 14:31.
Undoubtedly Israel and Judah had strong armies at this time, but the numbers that we proceed to read, in 2 Chronicles 13:2-3: “Then war broke out between Abijah and Jeroboam. Judah, led by King Abijah, fielded 400,000 select warriors, while Jeroboam mustered 800,000 select troops from Israel”, are quite unrealistic for those times.
And the same goes for Zerah the Ethiopian’s one million + men at approximately the same time (14:9): “Zerah the Ethiopian came out against them with an army of a million men and 300 chariots, and came as far as Mareshah”.
For a possible candidate for this Zerah, see e.g. my article:
Viceroy Usersatet my favoured choice for Zerah the Ethiopian
(7) Viceroy Usersatet my favoured choice for Zerah the Ethiopian | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
It has been suggested that King Solomon regarded his son and successor, Rehoboam, as a “fool”.
In my article:
King Solomon’s fading glory
(7) King Solomon’s fading glory | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I observed this:
Some say that the “fool” in Ecclesiastes (e.g. 2:19) would be a reference to Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, the unworthy son who will inherit what the father has laboured so hard to achieve. “And who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? Yet shall he have rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have shewed myself wise under the sun. This is also vanity”.
No sooner had Rehoboam come to power than he had managed, owing to consultation with the young hot-heads “who had grown up with him” (I Kings 12:10), to split the great Solomonic kingdom in twain, with his northern rival, Jeroboam, getting by far the lion’s share of it.
Now his sins and those of Judah would lead to invasion by a most powerful adversary, Thutmose III, dubbed by professor Breasted as “The Napoleon of Egypt”.
Presumably, again, the foolish King of Jerusalem sat down for consultation with the leaders of Jerusalem. To “take counsel” (βουλεύσεται). He was no military man.
What are we going to do?
Fortunately, this time, the wise prophet Shemaiah was at hand to forestall another potential disaster on the part of this foolish king of Jerusalem.
The Temple in Jerusalem would be despoiled, but many lives would now be spared as the inhabitants of Judah humbled themselves before the Lord and accepted their fate as subjects of the warrior Pharaoh.
2 Chronicles 12:5-16
Then the prophet Shemaiah came to Rehoboam and to the leaders of Judah who had assembled in Jerusalem for fear of Shishak, and he said to them, “This is what the Lord says, ‘You have abandoned me; therefore, I now abandon you to Shishak’.”
The leaders of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said, “The Lord is just.”
When the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, this word of the Lord came to Shemaiah: “Since they have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them but will soon give them deliverance. My wrath will not be poured out on Jerusalem through Shishak. They will, however, become subject to him, so that they may learn the difference between serving me and serving the kings of other lands.”
When Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem, he carried off the treasures of the Temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including the gold shields Solomon had made. So King Rehoboam made bronze shields to replace them and assigned these to the commanders of the guard on duty at the entrance to the royal palace. Whenever the king went to the Lord’s Temple, the guards went with him, bearing the shields, and afterward they returned them to the guardroom.
Because Rehoboam humbled himself, the Lord’s anger turned from him, and he was not totally destroyed. Indeed, there was some good in Judah.
King Rehoboam established himself firmly in Jerusalem and continued as king.
He was forty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel in which to put his Name. His mother’s name was Naamah; she was an Ammonite. He did evil because he had not set his heart on seeking the Lord.
As for the events of Rehoboam’s reign, from beginning to end, are they not written in the records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer that deal with genealogies? There was continual warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam. Rehoboam rested with his ancestors and was buried in the City of David. And Abijah his son succeeded him as king.
