Hanukkah in History and Prophecy (Continued)

                                              Hanukkah at the Time of Jesus

We have very little information as to how Jesus related to the festival. We are aware He was in the Temple at the time of the Feast:

“Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the    temple, in Solomon’s porch” (John 10:22–23).

It seems very probable that He would have been meditating on the implications of the festival. So the context of the abrasive John 10 debate between Himself and some of the nation’s leaders in Solomon’s Porch was the festival which memorialised the cleansing of the Temple after a victorious campaign  led by Judas Maccabaeus. He would have known that patriotic Jews would have been acutely aware of the parallels between the predicament that the Maccabees faced some two hundred years earlier and the difficulties that then faced the nation. At the time of the Syrian occupation they overcame all obstacles—but what of their present predicament?

When Christ walked in Solomon’s porch, Rome had power over Israel. The Emperor, Tiberius, also held the title ‘Pontifex Maximus’ which granted him authority over all Temples and religious activities in the empire. His personal representative, the Procurator, enforced this authority. For example, in Israel, the High Priest’s   official garments, made for beauty and glory and reflecting the High Priest’s ministry of intercession, were held by Pontius Pilate and only released for special occasions. Rome also kept a garrison of soldiers in the Antonia Fortress, which was in the shadow of the Temple. Always manned and ready for trouble, the castle was re-enforced with additional legionaries at feast times, especially during Hanukkah, which had clear nationalistic overtones. During this season    zealots fanned the nationalistic fervour by emphasizing the genesis of the festival, that is, the rejection of another emperor, a Syrian emperor, who also claimed jurisdiction over the Temple. But Rome, perhaps mindful of the folly of Antiochus; certainly more       politically aware than the Syrian; was careful not to repeat his mistake – their policy was to allow the Jews as much latitude as they could without compromising their own authority.

Jesus had a great affection for the Temple, at one time calling it “My Father’s House”. From Solomon’s Porch He could see the great altar of sacrifice which was   visible through the gate of Nicanor. He also understood the enormity of the profanity of Antiochus, who desecrated the Temple by slaughtering a pig on the  altar in the court of priests, as well as erecting a statue of Zeus in the most Holy Place (the home of the Ark of the Covenant, the ‘throne of God’). Jesus was also aware that the current High Priest, Caiaphas, was leading the Jewish ruling body, the Sanhedrin, to  commit an equally heinous profanity by rejecting His Messianic claim and demanding His crucifixion. 

The Pharisees, who considered themselves the descendants of the freedom fighters who liberated Israel, especially looked forward to the day when the Jewish nation would again know freedom and prosperity under the leadership of the Messiah. But how devious is the human heart – it is incurably sick – or as Jeremiah expressed it: “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9). Their hoped-for Messiah was among them, but His Messianic leadership was not to their taste. They would not be easily persuaded. John’s remark that it was winter describes not only the season but also the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees.

So the two skirmishes reported in John 10 begin in an atmosphere of hostility. Because of the ‘shepherd’    references in the second confrontation, John connects the dispute with a previously delivered discourse, that of the ‘Good Shepherd’. In that address Jesus started by using a double ‘amen’, that is, ‘truly, truly’ or ‘verily, verily’ (in verses 1 and 7). This emphasised the importance of the information that He was imparting. He spelt it out, albeit in familiar imagery, how the events of the near future would evolve. He declared the ‘Good Shepherd’ would die for the sheep, not as the result of an assassination attempt but rather because He chose to lay down His life in accordance with the divine plan of the Father. As He often did He divided the members of the nation into two identifiable groups – those who were His followers, ‘His sheep’, and those who were not. He promised ‘His sheep’ eternal safety, security and life abundant.  

With the ‘Good Shepherd’ teaching fresh in their minds the Pharisees again engaged the Lord Jesus in debate, this time during the Hanukkah season. These, who opposed Him, used the motif of the festival to raise the issue of His mission. They quickly got to the point and  asked Him directly, “How long do You keep us  in doubt? If You are the Christ (Messiah), tell us plainly” (John 10:24). It is possible that there were those listening who were zealots looking for a military leader who would follow the Maccabean heritage and lead Israel against Rome. Jesus, who later said to    Pilate He had no ambitions in that direction, had to craft his answer with care. An unwise response could result in a political charge that would bring    unnecessary complications. His path was clearly mapped out for Him. He would die in the right way (by being lifted up), at the right time (the time of the evening sacrifice) on the right day (14th Nisan—Passover), at the right Passover festival (in the 483rd year after the edict was issued to rebuild Jerusalem). His reply to the Pharisees was: “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me” (John 10:25). In other words He said, ‘I am providing evidence enough that I am your Messiah if you only had eyes to see, but you are blind’ (see John 9:39-41).

He then returned to the ‘Good Shepherd’ imagery which would have brought to the minds of His listeners the ‘shepherd’ texts of the Old Testament,  especially Psalm 23 but also Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel 34. The Davidic Psalm which begins “The Lord (YHWH) is my shepherd” (Psalm 23:1), is the passage that particularly speaks of God (YHWH) as the shepherd who provides sustenance and safety. Jesus, in taking this reference to Himself, (“I am the good shepherd” (John vv.11,14)), asserted His deity as well as His Messiahship. That was followed by even stronger assertions that identified Him with the Father. For example:

“And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one” (John 10:28–30).

These latest declarations –

that it is Jesus who gives  eternal life –

that His followers will never perish –

that He has the same keeping power as God the Father –

that He and the Father are one in purpose, one  in power and one in essence –

produced the predictable result - “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him”. Jesus challenged this latest outburst of anger,

“Many good works I have shown you from My  Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”

The Jews responded,

“For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God” (John 10.31-33).

This, of course, was part of the blasphemy of           Antiochus – he had called himself ‘Epiphany’ (god        manifest). In response to this latest accusation, the Messiah asked:

“Do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:36)

 

In this very pointed question Jesus used two aspects of the feast to point to two remarkable truths about Himself.

More Next Time:

The Feast of Dedication in History and Prophecy

The Maccabean Hanukkah (Continued)

But to return to the conduct of Antiochus. Daniel described it fully: “At the appointed time he (Antiochus) shall return and go toward the south (Egypt); but it shall not be like the former or the latter. For ships from Cyprus (carrying the Romans) shall come against him; therefore he (Antiochus) shall be grieved, and return in rage against the holy covenant (the Jewish people), and do damage” (Dan.11:29–30). This happened exactly as Daniel had predicted. No longer able to proceed against Egypt, Antiochus was compelled to turn back, ready to vent his fury on Israel. He sent Apollonius, the head of his mercenaries and the chief collector of tribute, to Jerusalem. Antiochus ordered him to ‘thoroughly Hellenise the Jews’. Apollonius pretended to come in peace but on the Sabbath day he suddenly attacked, killing many and plundering the city. The walls of Jerusalem were thrown down and the old city, the city of David, was fortified. A garrison of Syrian soldiers was billeted there. It was decreed that Jerusalem was henceforth to be known as a Greek city.

Further measures were introduced to accelerate the programme of Hellenisation. Jewish worship was suspended and Jewish ceremonies strictly forbidden. Once a month a rigorous search took place. If any man was found with a copy of the Torah, or if any had his child circumcised, he was put to death. Throughout Israel the Jewish religion was rooted out and the worship of the Greek gods introduced. But Antiochus was impatient and heavy handed. He tried to force the issue. Resistance among the population grew and support for the Chasidim increased. Events came to a head when he commandeered the Jerusalem Temple for his own purposes. On the 15^th Chisleu 168 BC, that is, in December of that year, he initiated an incident that outraged the nation. A pagan altar was built at the great altar in the court of priests. Then ten days later on the 25^th Chisleu, a  sacrifice to the Greek god Zeus was offered on it. In this way the Sanctuary was defiled.

These high-handed actions of Antiochus Epiphanes are considered by many as the fulfilment of prophecies from the book of Daniel. In conjunction with the prophecy of the division of Alexander’s empire into four after his death, there is added another prediction. From one of the four parts of the empire, that of Syria, will arise another ruler, a “little horn” that will speak great things (see Daniel 7:8 and 8:9 ff). Many scholars suggest that this little horn represents the eighth ruler of the Seleucid Greek Empire, the afore-mentioned Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel, who lived and wrote long before Alexander was born, or ever the events of the Maccabean uprising took place, foretells with supreme accuracy the pivotal event which will break the oppression of the Syrians. He wrote;

 “they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation” (Dan. 11:31).

This verse points directly to the defiling of the Temple by Antiochus in 168 BC. Initially, the Hebrew people only reacted with passive resistance but this was soon replaced by open revolt. It broke out in the town of Modein at the call of a priest of the order of Joarib, named Mattathias. When the king’s officer came to  Modein with orders that the inhabitants offer a heathen sacrifice, Mattathias refused to obey and stepping forward said:

“Though all the nations that are under the king’s dominion obey him, and fall away every one from the religion of their fathers and give consent to his commandments, yet will I and my sons and my brothers walk in the covenant of our fathers. God forbid that we should forsake the law and the ordinances”.

When Mattathias saw another from the town approaching the altar to offer the sacrifice and appease the king’s officer he rushed forward and slew him there. He and his sons also killed the king’s commissioner and levelled the altar to the ground. Mattathias and his five sons, John, Simon, Judas, Eleasar and Jonathan, fled to the mountains and were joined by others of the Chasidim. In this fashion a campaign of guerrilla warfare was born. The son of Mattathias, Judas was appointed military leader of the movement and he and the force under him felt that they had the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob on their side. They marched against the Syrians and won a brilliant victory. They began to restore the worship   of YHWH in Zion. This gave further impetus to the   rebellion. Judas became known as ‘the hammer’, that is, ‘Maccabeus’. 

Antiochus was engaged elsewhere, but he gave orders that a large army should be commissioned to put down the rebellion. By now Judas’ army was battle-hardened but not wishing to take anything for granted they prepared for the encounter with prayer and fasting. Again they were victorious. After another victory Judas took possession of Jerusalem. Although he could not dislodge the Syrian forces from the walled and fortified ‘city of David’, he was still able to keep them in check while cleansing the Temple ready for a resumption of divine worship. Everything impure was carried out of the Temple and the great altar which had been polluted was dismantled and wholly replaced. New sacred garments and furniture were provided, and when everything was in order the Temple was re-consecrated. A joyous occasion it was celebrated with a great feast. This was on the 25^th Chisleu, that is, in December 165 BC on exactly the same day as the altar had been desecrated three years earlier.

When the Temple was first dedicated during the reign of Solomon it was at the feast of Tabernacles in the month of Tishri in the autumn. That celebration lasted eight days. So, although the Maccabean Hanukkah was in winter it was decided that it should also last for eight days. The recovery of the Temple for the worship of YHWH was so momentous that it was resolved to celebrate it annually. It was added to the festival calendar and called ‘the Feast of Dedication’.

Alas, the time of independence under the Maccabees was not long-lasting. While the leaders kept their early confidence and followed the example of Jonathan (son of Saul) who said, “… nothing restrains the Lord from saving by many or by few.” (1 Sam. 14:6) they were invincible. But to maintain the peace they began to make political alliances with others in the region. Their total dependence on God was compromised and the freedom which they bought with great cost was lost. Nevertheless, the Israelite nation always looked back to the time of the Maccabees with pride, especially the Pharisees who considered themselves the inheritors of their cause. The words of Mattathias could well describe their motivation: “Though all the nations that are under the king’s dominion obey him, and fall away every one from the religion of their fathers and give consent to his commandments, yet will I and my sons and my brothers walk in the covenant of our fathers. God forbid that we should forsake the law and the ordinances”.

The Pharisees considered themselves the defenders of the law and the ordinances.

Post Script: This festival is also called the Festival of Lights, for in the Talmud the story was further   elaborated to tell of a miracle that took place. They could only find one jar of sacred oil bearing the seal of the High Priest. Only this pure oil could be used to light the Temple Menorah and it was just enough for one day and one night, no more. Miraculously, the one day’s supply kept the Menorah alight for eight days, that is, until more pure oil was available. It was     seen as a sign of God’s acceptance of the Temple’s rededication. Today in Jewish circles this is reflected in the lighting of the hanukiyah, the eight light lamp, or eight branched menorah. In the Feast of Tabernacles (the festival during which the first dedication took place) the lamps were lit while mainly looking back – to the journey of Israel in the wilderness. At the Feast of Dedication the lights were lit while mainly looking   forward, pointing to a hoped-for time when the Messiah would come to the Temple and establish, as Judas Maccabeus had, a time of independence.

Next Time: Hanukkah at the time of Jesus

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Feast of Dedication in History and Prophecy

The Maccabean Hanukkah

But Israel’s exile had left them weak and exposed. They were constantly exposed to the ambitions of the  stronger nations of the region. The land of ‘milk and honey’ was always an object of desire for those national leaders that had aspirations of domination. As the book of Daniel prophesied (chapter 2), control of the territory and people of Israel would pass from the Chaldeans (the head of gold in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision) to the Persians (the breast and arms of silver) to the Greeks (Alexander the Great) (the middle and thighs of bronze) and then to Rome (the legs of iron). Between the third (Greek) and fourth (Roman) kingdoms there was a period when others vied for supremacy. Amidst the confusion that followed the death of Alexander, Israel was dominated first by the Egyptians, and later by the Syrians.

While the Babylonian captivity left the greatest mark on the nation, the policies of Alexander the Great also left a lasting legacy. Alexander was militarily acute and politically aware. He understood that controlling such a vast empire was an enormous task, so he instituted a policy of ‘Hellenisation’. This meant they tried to bring the population to conform to a common lifestyle and culture, that is, to be good citizens of its empire. To promote this he encouraged colonists and traders to follow in the wake of his army and settle in the conquered territories. They brought the Greek language, Greek values and the Greek way of life with them. As a result Greek became the language of business and government throughout the empire. All nations under his control were affected, at least to some degree. Certainly, the main cities were required to embrace ‘Hellenisation’ although away from the heaviest populated areas many ethnic groups maintained their ancient way of life holding fast to the language of their fathers.

It was at the beginning of the second century B.C. Antiochus the Great succeeded in securing the land of Israel for Syria. He had three sons and five daughters. His sons ruled after him, the third of them, Mithridates took the title ‘Antiochus Epiphanes’ and reigned from 175 to 164 B.C. He was a despot who indicated that he wished to be considered a god himself, hence the title ‘Epiphanes’ (god manifest).

While Antiochus the Great seemed to show some sympathy towards the Jews, his sons travelled a different road. Part of their strategy was to imitate   Alexander and bring the population to conform to a common lifestyle and image. Following Alexander’s example, they imposed Greek values and Greek culture on nations under their control. They re-enforced the use of the Greek language, built gymnasiums in the main towns and instituted the Greek games. To accomplish it fully they needed to eradicate any peculiarities that individual nations might have. For the Hebrew nation this involved their religion.

In Israel there was a significant group called ‘the pious’ (the Chasidim) who were faithful to the Hebrew Scriptures, traditions and culture. They resisted, but generally the population took the easier course and accepted the changes.

When Antiochus ascended the throne, the head of the population in Judea was the High Priest, Onias III. He was attached to the old faith, but his brother Jesus (better known under his Greek name Jason) was the leader of the party who were friendly with the Greek faction. Jason attempted to obtain the government of Judea for himself and offered Antiochus a great sum of money along with other inducements if he could be granted the office of High Priest. Antiochus accepted the bribe and Jason was installed as Israel’s High Priest. He fully committed himself to the process of Hellenisation and pursued it with energy and vigour. Initially the Temple and its activities were free from interference, but in every other direction he put down “the institutions that were according to the law, and brought up new customs against the law” (2 Macc.4:11). A gymnasium was constructed in Jerusalem and young Jewish men exercised themselves in the  gymnastic arts. Even the priests left their duties in the Temple to participate. From 174 BC to 171 BC Jason administered his office promoting ‘Hellenisation’. Then he fell to a rival, one Menelaus who took over the office of High Priest.

In the meantime Antiochus proceeded against Egypt. After plundering that land he made his way home via Israel and found an insurrection in progress. He put down the revolt, killing some 80,000 people, including women and children (2 Macc.5:12-14). The atrocities of this evil tyrant had reached calamitous proportions. He looted the Temple with the help of Menelaus, and removed the gold furniture from the Holy Place, that is, the altar of incense, the seven-branch lampstand and the table that held ‘the bread of the presence’—but worse was to come.

Antiochus, having had success against Egypt, marched south again, but this time Rome decided to intervene. A Roman general, Popilius Laenus, was despatched to intercept his expedition and present him with an ultimatum from the senate. It demanded he give up his ambitions in Egypt or be considered an enemy of Rome. Antiochus asked for time to speak to his advisors and consider the matter. Popilius drew a circle around him in the sand and said he required an answer before Antiochus stepped out of the circle. The Syrian ruler yielded and turned back. This encounter is especially important because it is here that the fourth kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision is introduced. Supremacy in the region will pass to them in due course and it will be Rome that will hold power at the time of the incarnation.

 

More Next Time: