Can anyone shed light on this?"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be."
Non-Davidic post-exilic kings
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Non-Davidic post-exilic kings
I'm listening to Steve's new Matthew lectures, while working through NT Wright's Matthew for Everyone in our bible study class. At one point, Steve mentions that Herod was an Edomite and the first of the kings not to be Davidic. NT Wright mentions that none of the kings following the exile were Davidic. Since the exile was more than a generation previous, I would think this might bear on the Genesis 49:10 prophecy concerning the scepter and the coming ruler.
Re: Non-Davidic post-exilic kings
The only kings reigning in Judah, between the time of Jeconiah (David's last pre-exilic heir to the throne) and Herod, were those of the Hasmonean dynasty—who, as N.T. Wright correctly observes, were not of the Davidic (nor even the Judahite) line.
The Hasmonean "kings" after the exile were largely self-appointed usurpers, reigning often by coop and assassination, rather than lineal hereditary succession. They were of the line of priests (tribe of Levi), rather than the Davidic (tribe of Judah).
The Hasmonean dynasty, even if its "reign" be counted as somehow legitimate, would not represent the "scepter" departing from Judah in the same sense that the later appointment of Herod did. Even if the Hasmoneans were not of the tribe of Judah, they were "Jews"—that is, part of the nation of Judah. All post-exilic Israelites were called Jews, and were from the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Therefore, in a sense, Judah possessed its own ethnic scepter, even under the Hasmonean rulers.
There are other considerations, too. I believe the Hasmoneans may be seen as barely deserving the title "kings of Israel (or Judah)" at all. The legitimate dynasties of Israel and Judah were appointed by God through prophets, who anointed the dynastic heads (cf., 1 Samuel 10:1; 16:13; 1 Kings 1:39; 19:16). The Hasmonean dynasty was established without a prophet, and was originally to be a temporary arrangement until a prophet should arise. I don’t believe the Hasmoneans, from a biblical point of view, had a divinely-recognized "scepter" at all.
Simon Maccabeus (140–135 BC), the first of the dynasty, assumed national leadership and held a double title—high priest and "prince of Israel." He was elected in Greek fashion, by a general assembly, rather than by divine appointment through a prophet. It was agreed that he should be the leader "until there should arise a faithful prophet" (1 Macc. 14:41). In other words, his role was more like that of one of the Judges than of a divinely appointed king. Unlike the judges, Simon set up his family to be a hereditary dynasty. In 139 BC, the legitimacy of Simon's dynasty received recognition from Rome. He and his two oldest sons were assassinated by his son-in-law. Simon was succeeded by his third son, John Hyrcanus.
John Hyrcanus (134–104 BC) became high priest, like his father, and also assumed a regal name "Hyrcanus." For twenty years, his political role was as "governor" under the Syrian rule. He later revolted against Syria and became the independent leader of Judea. It was under his rule that the Idumeans (Edomites), from whom Herod later arose, were subdued and forced to convert to Judaism (Josephus, Antiquities xiii, 9:1). Hyrcanus intended that, upon his death, the political leadership would pass to his wife, and that the high priesthood would pass to his oldest son, Aristobulus I.
Aristobulus I (104–103 BC), upon the death of his father, killed his mother and assumed both political and religious leadership of the nation. He was the first of the Hasmoneans to refer to himself as "king" (Gr. basileus). He jailed his three brothers, one of whom was Alexander Jannaeus. When Aristobulus died, his widow released the brothers from prison, and Alexander Jannaeus succeeded his older brother to power.
Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BC) was asked, by the Pharisaic party, to choose between being high priest and ruler. He, preferring to keep both titles, refused and sided with their rival party, the Sadducees, giving them preference in determining temple ritual. He and his wife Salome Alexandra had two sons who ruled at a later time—Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II—but when Alaxander Jannaeus died, his wife ruled in his place, and their son, Hyrcanus II, was made high priest.
Salome Alexandra (76–67 BC) was the only reigning queen of the Hasmonean dynasty. She favored the Pharisaic party, and under her rule, the Pharisees became the dominant party over the Sadducees, in determining the temple rituals and in the Sanhedrin. Salome appointed her son Hyrcanus to succeed her, as well maintaining the high priest's office.
Hyrcanus II (67–66 BC), reigned after his mother's death, but immediately faced a revolt from his younger brother, Aristobulus. The latter prevailed and assumed the throne in place of his brother. However, the matter, after a period of civil war, was settled amicably, and Hyrcanus maintained privileges as part of the royal family.
Aristobulus II (66–63 BC), like his mother, favored the Sadducean party, so that they became dominant during his reign.
Hyrcanus II (63–40 BC), through the counsel of his advisor Antipater, and with the assistance of the Nabataeans, attacked and beseiged Jerusalem. The Romans intervened, siding with Hyrcanus. Hyrcanus was permitted to hold the office of high priest and given the honorary title "ethnarch" until the Romans appointed Herod as "King of the Jews."
[ Side note: The word ethnarch does not rise to the status of "king." It literally means "ruler of a race." Herod the Great was called "King of the Jews" but, after his death, his three sons held lesser titles. None were entrusted, by Rome, with the title "King." In the early lifetime of Jesus (4 BC to AD 6), Archelaus was called the "ethnarch", while his brothers Philip and Antipas each bore the title "tetrarch" (Luke 3:1), meaning "ruler of a quarter."]
Antigonus (40–37 BC), a son of Aristobulus, after the death of his father, assisted by the Parthians, staged a rebellion against Rome's appointment of Herod, and seized for himself the offices of king and high priest from 40-37 BC. He was defeated and killed by the Romans in 37 BC. Herod reigned from that time till the birth of Jesus.
In summary:
The first Hasmonean leader (Simon) was elected by the people (not appointed by God).
The second Hasmonean leader (John Hyrcanus) came to power as the result of the assassination of his father and two older brothers.
The third Hasmonean leader (Aristobulus) assumed power and regal title by killing his own mother, whom his father had intended as his successor.
The fourth Hasmonean leader (Alexander Jannaeus) was the younger brother of his predecessor.
The fifth Hasmonean leader (Salome Alexandra) was the widow of her predecessor—thus, not in the same bloodline.
Her sons reigned after her—one by her appointment, and one by coop.
Thus the rise and fall of the Hasmonean “dynasty” hardly qualifies as the divinely-appointed “scepter” departing from Judah. This dynasty was not recognized as a legitimate monarchy by God, but was a human institution, perpetuated by intrigue and violence. It would seem to fall into the same category of some of the northern kingdom's short-lived dynasties—as God had earlier said, “They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them" (Hosea 8:4). This dynasty was a brief usurpation by the priests to the royal office. During their tenure, the legitimate scepter did not pass from “Judah” at all, since the priests (and all Israelites) were of the Judean nation anyway.
One might say that Herod’s reign was no more a legitimate interruption of the Davidic monarchy than was the Hasmonean, with the exception that he was not self-appointed. He was appointed by Rome, the fourth of the “beasts” which Daniel had identified as belonging to the empires divinely appointed to precede the Messiah’s kingdom (Daniel 2). That is, Rome’s rise might be seen as being of God, and their appointment of Herod might thus be regarded as God’s providential assignment of a non-Judean king over Israel—a development signaling the appropriate time for “Shiloh” to come (Genesis 49:10).
The Hasmonean "kings" after the exile were largely self-appointed usurpers, reigning often by coop and assassination, rather than lineal hereditary succession. They were of the line of priests (tribe of Levi), rather than the Davidic (tribe of Judah).
The Hasmonean dynasty, even if its "reign" be counted as somehow legitimate, would not represent the "scepter" departing from Judah in the same sense that the later appointment of Herod did. Even if the Hasmoneans were not of the tribe of Judah, they were "Jews"—that is, part of the nation of Judah. All post-exilic Israelites were called Jews, and were from the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Therefore, in a sense, Judah possessed its own ethnic scepter, even under the Hasmonean rulers.
There are other considerations, too. I believe the Hasmoneans may be seen as barely deserving the title "kings of Israel (or Judah)" at all. The legitimate dynasties of Israel and Judah were appointed by God through prophets, who anointed the dynastic heads (cf., 1 Samuel 10:1; 16:13; 1 Kings 1:39; 19:16). The Hasmonean dynasty was established without a prophet, and was originally to be a temporary arrangement until a prophet should arise. I don’t believe the Hasmoneans, from a biblical point of view, had a divinely-recognized "scepter" at all.
Simon Maccabeus (140–135 BC), the first of the dynasty, assumed national leadership and held a double title—high priest and "prince of Israel." He was elected in Greek fashion, by a general assembly, rather than by divine appointment through a prophet. It was agreed that he should be the leader "until there should arise a faithful prophet" (1 Macc. 14:41). In other words, his role was more like that of one of the Judges than of a divinely appointed king. Unlike the judges, Simon set up his family to be a hereditary dynasty. In 139 BC, the legitimacy of Simon's dynasty received recognition from Rome. He and his two oldest sons were assassinated by his son-in-law. Simon was succeeded by his third son, John Hyrcanus.
John Hyrcanus (134–104 BC) became high priest, like his father, and also assumed a regal name "Hyrcanus." For twenty years, his political role was as "governor" under the Syrian rule. He later revolted against Syria and became the independent leader of Judea. It was under his rule that the Idumeans (Edomites), from whom Herod later arose, were subdued and forced to convert to Judaism (Josephus, Antiquities xiii, 9:1). Hyrcanus intended that, upon his death, the political leadership would pass to his wife, and that the high priesthood would pass to his oldest son, Aristobulus I.
Aristobulus I (104–103 BC), upon the death of his father, killed his mother and assumed both political and religious leadership of the nation. He was the first of the Hasmoneans to refer to himself as "king" (Gr. basileus). He jailed his three brothers, one of whom was Alexander Jannaeus. When Aristobulus died, his widow released the brothers from prison, and Alexander Jannaeus succeeded his older brother to power.
Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BC) was asked, by the Pharisaic party, to choose between being high priest and ruler. He, preferring to keep both titles, refused and sided with their rival party, the Sadducees, giving them preference in determining temple ritual. He and his wife Salome Alexandra had two sons who ruled at a later time—Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II—but when Alaxander Jannaeus died, his wife ruled in his place, and their son, Hyrcanus II, was made high priest.
Salome Alexandra (76–67 BC) was the only reigning queen of the Hasmonean dynasty. She favored the Pharisaic party, and under her rule, the Pharisees became the dominant party over the Sadducees, in determining the temple rituals and in the Sanhedrin. Salome appointed her son Hyrcanus to succeed her, as well maintaining the high priest's office.
Hyrcanus II (67–66 BC), reigned after his mother's death, but immediately faced a revolt from his younger brother, Aristobulus. The latter prevailed and assumed the throne in place of his brother. However, the matter, after a period of civil war, was settled amicably, and Hyrcanus maintained privileges as part of the royal family.
Aristobulus II (66–63 BC), like his mother, favored the Sadducean party, so that they became dominant during his reign.
Hyrcanus II (63–40 BC), through the counsel of his advisor Antipater, and with the assistance of the Nabataeans, attacked and beseiged Jerusalem. The Romans intervened, siding with Hyrcanus. Hyrcanus was permitted to hold the office of high priest and given the honorary title "ethnarch" until the Romans appointed Herod as "King of the Jews."
[ Side note: The word ethnarch does not rise to the status of "king." It literally means "ruler of a race." Herod the Great was called "King of the Jews" but, after his death, his three sons held lesser titles. None were entrusted, by Rome, with the title "King." In the early lifetime of Jesus (4 BC to AD 6), Archelaus was called the "ethnarch", while his brothers Philip and Antipas each bore the title "tetrarch" (Luke 3:1), meaning "ruler of a quarter."]
Antigonus (40–37 BC), a son of Aristobulus, after the death of his father, assisted by the Parthians, staged a rebellion against Rome's appointment of Herod, and seized for himself the offices of king and high priest from 40-37 BC. He was defeated and killed by the Romans in 37 BC. Herod reigned from that time till the birth of Jesus.
In summary:
The first Hasmonean leader (Simon) was elected by the people (not appointed by God).
The second Hasmonean leader (John Hyrcanus) came to power as the result of the assassination of his father and two older brothers.
The third Hasmonean leader (Aristobulus) assumed power and regal title by killing his own mother, whom his father had intended as his successor.
The fourth Hasmonean leader (Alexander Jannaeus) was the younger brother of his predecessor.
The fifth Hasmonean leader (Salome Alexandra) was the widow of her predecessor—thus, not in the same bloodline.
Her sons reigned after her—one by her appointment, and one by coop.
Thus the rise and fall of the Hasmonean “dynasty” hardly qualifies as the divinely-appointed “scepter” departing from Judah. This dynasty was not recognized as a legitimate monarchy by God, but was a human institution, perpetuated by intrigue and violence. It would seem to fall into the same category of some of the northern kingdom's short-lived dynasties—as God had earlier said, “They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them" (Hosea 8:4). This dynasty was a brief usurpation by the priests to the royal office. During their tenure, the legitimate scepter did not pass from “Judah” at all, since the priests (and all Israelites) were of the Judean nation anyway.
One might say that Herod’s reign was no more a legitimate interruption of the Davidic monarchy than was the Hasmonean, with the exception that he was not self-appointed. He was appointed by Rome, the fourth of the “beasts” which Daniel had identified as belonging to the empires divinely appointed to precede the Messiah’s kingdom (Daniel 2). That is, Rome’s rise might be seen as being of God, and their appointment of Herod might thus be regarded as God’s providential assignment of a non-Judean king over Israel—a development signaling the appropriate time for “Shiloh” to come (Genesis 49:10).