Milo

“For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” Matthew 17:20

As a grain of mustard-seed – The mustard-seed was the smallest of all seeds. It has been supposed by some, therefore, that he meant to say, If you have the smallest or feeblest faith that is genuine, you can do all things. The mustard-seed produced the largest of all herbs. It has been supposed by others, therefore, to mean, If you have increasing, expanding, enlarged faith, growing and strengthening from small beginnings, you can perform the most difficult undertaking. There is a principle of vitality in the grain of seed stretching forward to great results, which illustrates the nature of faith. Your faith should be like that. This is probably the true meaning.

Ye shall say unto this mountain … – Probably he pointed to a mountain near, to assure them that if they had such faith they might accomplish the most difficult undertakings – things that at first would appear impossible.

James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC `on a Wednesday’.

— Craig, G. Y. and E. J. Jones. A Geological Miscellany. Princeton University Press, 1982.

Ussher’s spellings have been faithfully kept in the following excerpt.

For as much as our Christian epoch falls many ages after the beginning of the world, and the number of years before that backward is not only more troublesome, but (unless greater care be taken) more lyable to errour; also it hath pleased our modern chronologers, to adde to that generally received hypothesis (which asserted the Julian years, with their three cycles by a certain mathematical prolepsis, to have run down to the very beginning of the world) an artificial epoch, framed out of three cycles multiplied in themselves; for the Solar Cicle being multiplied by the Lunar, or the number of 28 by 19, produces the great Paschal Cycle of 532 years, and that again multiplied by fifteen, the number of the indiction, there arises the period of 7980 years, which was first (if I mistake not) observed by Robert Lotharing, Bishop of Hereford, in our island of Britain, and 500 years after by Joseph Scaliger fitted for chronological uses, and called by the name of the Julian Period, because it conteined a cycle of so many Julian years. Now if the series of the three minor cicles be from this present year extended backward unto precedent times, the 4713 years before the beginning of our Christian account will be found to be that year into which the first year of the indiction, the first of the Lunar Cicle, and the first of the Solar will fall. Having placed there fore the heads of this period in the kalends of January in that proleptick year, the first of our Christian vulgar account must be reckoned the 4714 of the Julian Period, which, being divided by 15. 19. 28. will present us with the 4 Roman indiction, the 2 Lunar Cycle, and the 10 Solar, which are the principal characters of that year.

We find moreover that the year of our fore-fathers, and the years of the ancient Egyptians and Hebrews were of the same quantity with the Julian, consisting of twelve equal moneths, every of them conteining 30 days, (for it cannot be proved that the Hebrews did use lunary moneths before the Babylonian Captivity) adjoying to the end of the twelfth moneth, the addition of five dayes, and every four year six. And I have observed by the continued succession of these years, as they are delivered in holy writ, that the end of the great Nebuchadnezars and the beginning of Evilmerodachs (his sons) reign, fell out in the 3442 year of the world, but by collation of Chaldean history and the astronomical cannon, it fell out in the 186 year c Nabonasar, and, as by certain connexion, it must follow in the 562 year before the Christian account, and of the Julian Period, the 4152. and from thence I gathered the creation of the world did fall out upon the 710 year of the Julian Period, by placing its beginning in autumn: but for as much as the first day of the world began with the evening of the first day of the week, I have observed that the Sunday, which in the year 710 aforesaid came nearest the Autumnal Æquinox, by astronomical tables (notwithstanding the stay of the sun in the dayes of Joshua, and the going back of it in the dayes c Ezekiah) happened upon the 23 day of the Julian October; from thence concluded that from the evening preceding that first day of the Julian year, both the first day of the creation and the first motion of time are to be deduced. — J. Ussher, The Annals of the World iv (1658)

The above excerpt makes no mention of the time of day at which creation occurred. In popular references one often finds it given as 9 A.M., and this is wrongly attributed to Ussher. The following excerpt from Andrew D. White’s book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (D. Appleton and Co., 1897, p. 9) identifies the culprit as Sir John Lightfoot:

…the general conclusion arrived at by an overwhelming majority of the most competent students of the biblical accounts was that the date of creation was, in round numbers, four thousand years before our era; and in the seventeenth century, in his great work, Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and one of the most eminent Hebrew scholars of his time, declared, as the result of his most profound and exhaustive study of the Scriptures, that “heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created all together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water,” and that “this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o’clock in the morning.”

John Lightfoot (1602-1675), Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University was a contemporary of Ussher. Lightfoot published his calculations in 1644, before Ussher’s were completed.

Thu, Sep 25, 2003, 01:00 

A 17th-century Irish prelate reached the heights of scientific sophistication in estimating Earth’s age, writes Mary Mulvihill

In 1650 the archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, began counting all the “begats” in the Old Testament. He also studied ancient Egyptian and Hebrew texts, analysed how the ancient calendars were calculated and came up with a date for the Creation.

The world, he concluded, had begun one weekend in 4004 BC – specifically, on the evening before October 23rd.

These days most people laugh at the Irish clergyman’s work. Yet in 1650 it was the height of scientific sophistication, and many other erudite scholars were computing similar sums.

There was even heated academic debate about whether time would have begun on the Saturday evening or the Sunday morning.

Modern geologists can use complex dating techniques to assess the age of a piece of rock. But transport them back to 1650 and they’d find that the only way to calculate an age for Earth was to follow Ussher’s technique, treating the Bible, “God’s truth”, as an accurate historical record.

Ussher chose October 23rd for his moment of Creation as, under the old calendar, it was the autumn equinox, a traditional start to the year.

He believed the 23rd would have been a Sunday, as time would surely have begun on the first day of the week, and he specified the previous evening, as traditionally this was when each day began. Many scholars agreed with Ussher that Earth was about 5,650 years old.

The Venerable Bede, for example, believed the Creation had happened in 3952 BC; Isaac Newton plumped for 3998 BC. The date was still hotly disputed, however; John Lightfoot, an eminent Hebrew scholar at Cambridge, believed the Creation took place at 9 a.m. on the day of the equinox and not, as Ussher suggested, the previous evening.

When it came to printing English Bibles, however, and adding a chronology in the margins, Ussher’s calculation was the one chosen, and in time his work was accorded the same respect as the scriptures themselves.

The work was still widely accepted in the late 19th century, but by then scientists were exploring other ways of calculating Earth’s age, based on the amount of salt that had accumulated in the oceans, for example, or the time Earth took to cool from a molten mass to a solid planet.

Ussher, who was born in Dublin in 1581, was from a merchant family whose name survives in the city’s Ussher’s Island.

He was one of the first students to attend Trinity College in Dublin, starting at the age of 13, and his book collection later formed the nucleus of the college’s library.

He was a renowned scholar, a professor of theology at Trinity and a keen astronomer who used a telescope to verify for himself the theories of Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus.

He was in England in 1642 when civil war broke out and remained there, managing to be both a royalist (he attended Charles I at the scaffold) and a friend to Oliver Cromwell.

When Ussher died, in 1656, he was buried, at Cromwell’s request, in Westminster Cathedral.

• Ussher is one of the scientific pioneers featured in Mary Mulvihill’s award-winning Ingenious Ireland (TownHouse)

MARCH 24

Reading 83

JUDAH’S FALL 2 Kings 21–25

“I am going to bring such disaster on Jerusalem and Judah that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle”(2 Kings 21:12).Manasseh’s 55-year reign dragged Judah into detestable sins. Even a brief revival under Josiah could not reverse the plunge to judgment. The highway of sin leads to one destination only.

Background

Josiah’s vigorous and successful reign took place during a time of Assyrian decline. In the 630sB.C that great empire was weakened by internal strife. In 626 Babylon revolted, and in a stunningly quick rise made its bid to replace Assyria as the dominant world power. Nineveh fell in 612B.C, and the final battle was fought in 605 at Carchemish. Josiah died in battle in 609 attempting to keep an Egyptian army under Pharaoh Neco from joining the Assyrians. Despite the fact that Babylon then was dominant, Egypt consistently encouraged uprisings in the Palestinian states. Judah’s kings were frequently led into rebelling against Babylon. In consequence, Judah suffered a series of Babylonian invasions and deportations. The final invasion came in 587, when Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. In 586 the city was destroyed and its people deported to Babylon. The few Jews who remained murdered a Babylonian governor and garrison, and fled to Egypt. The Books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel graphically portray spiritual and political conditions during the last decades of the nation, and specify the sins for which Judah was judged.

Overview

Manasseh’s 55-year rule set Judah firmly on the course of evil (21:1–25). His grandson, Josiah, led a bright but brief revival (22:1–23:30). Wicked kings then succeeded one another (v. 31–24:20), until Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and the people of Judah were carried into Captivity (25:1–30). KING LIST

Years	Judah’s Rulers
697–642	Manasseh
642–640	Amon
640–609	Josiah
609	Jehoahaz
609–598	Jehoiakim
598–597	Jehoiachin
597–586	Zedekiah
586	BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY

Understanding the Text

“He has . . . led Judah into sin with his idols” 2 Kings 21:1–18. Manasseh’s brutal, idolatrous reign led God to pronounce irrevocable judgment on Judah (cf. vv. 12–15). What Manasseh’s lengthy rule did was to impress a pattern on Judah’s society. That pattern became so deeply ingrained that all Josiah’s efforts at reform were unable to change it. Habakkuk, who ministered in Josiah’s time, complained to God that Judah’s society was marred with entrenched injustice despite restoration of temple worship (cf. Hab. 1:2–4). A famous study traced the members of two New England families. One produced a long line of ministers, schoolteachers, and college professors. The other produced a series of criminals and murderers. In families, as in Manasseh’s Judah, the lives we live can set the pattern for future generations. “I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord” 2 Kings 22:1–20. Josiah’s early religious commitment was shown in his efforts to repair the temple of the Lord. He was unguided, for apparently during the rule of Manasseh most copies of the Old Testament Scriptures were destroyed. Then a copy of the Law, which some take to be the entire five books of Moses, was found. A shaken Josiah realized how disobedient Judah had been. Inquiries addressed to Huldah, a prophetess, brought back word that Judah’s fate was sealed. But because Josiah had been humble and responsive to God, the disaster would come only after his death. God is still looking for people who are shaken by society’s abandonment of biblical principles of holiness and justice. When we are humble and responsive, God will bless us individually whatever may happen to our land. Josiah’s zeal was so great that he set out to rid Judah of all those practices against which God’s Word spoke. The list of his actions suggests the extent of Judah’s apostasy. What we can appreciate about Josiah is his example of total commitment. We can ask nothing more than to be like Josiah, who “turned to the Lord . . . with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength” (23:25). Josiah’s 31-year reign over Judah did not change the direction of his nation. But Josiah’s consistent efforts to serve the Lord won him the divine accolade. God does not require us to be successful. He does, however, call us to be totally committed. “So Judah went into captivity, away from her land” 2 Kings 25:1–26. Against the urging of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who called for submission, Judah’s last kings kept on rebelling against the Babylonians. The third time Babylonian forces appeared before Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar ordered the city and its temple to be razed, and the majority of its people taken into Captivity. The few who remained assassinated the Babylonian governor and his garrison, and fled to Egypt, leaving the land void of Abraham’s descendants. The Babylonian Captivity seems on the surface a great tragedy. Yet it proved to be an unusual blessing. In Babylon the Jews turned to the Scriptures to understand what had happened to them. They decisively rejected idolatry; after the Captivity the nation was never again drawn to the worship of false gods. And in Babylon the synagogue system of study and prayer was instituted; a system which has kept the focus of Israel on Scripture to the present day. Even in the most terrible of judgments God remained true to His commitment to do His people good. Whatever happens to you or me, we can know that God is committed to us. He loves us, and He will do us good.

DEVOTIONAL

A Visit to Topheth (2 Kings 22–23)

One of the actions Josiah took in his zeal for the Lord was to desecrate Topheth, where sacrifices were made to “Molech.” The reference to Topheth turns my thoughts to a modern horror which is very like the ancient practice. What was a “topheth”? And what was a sacrifice made to “Molech”? A topheth was a district set aside for a class of sacrifices indicated by the Hebrew letters m-l-k. These were sacrifices in which children up to four years of age were presented as an offering made to a god or goddess from whom the offerer sought some benefit. Perhaps the benefit was a little more money. Perhaps better health. Perhaps a better job. Whatever it was, these parents seemingly thought nothing of bringing living children to the place of sacrifice and, as pounding drums drowned out anguished cries, burning them alive. The modern horror? It’s the practice of some of laying the lives of their unborn children on an abortionist’s altar—with the same motives. A baby will cost too much money. A baby now will spoil the vacation we planned. A baby now will tie me to my house, just when I’m making progress on my job. A baby will be inconvenient—so I’ll exchange the fetus nestled within me for what I hope will be a better quality of life for me. But are the two practices really equivalent? In all honesty, we have to say they are. The infants of the ancients were individuals. Undeveloped, not yet adults, but separate and distinct persons from the parents on whom they had to depend. The fetus of today is also a separate and distinct person, with each cell marked off by a unique pattern of genes and chromosomes that are absolutely different from the pattern found in every cell of the mother’s body. The unborn child is not part of the mother, but an individual in his or her own right. An individual moderns seem all too ready to treat with the same indifference as the ancients treated infants and toddlers. So next time you hear some impassioned argument for the right of women to do what they want with their own bodies, don’t be confused. What the pro- choice position asks is nothing less than the right to rebuild Topheth, where parents can offer up the lives of their children in the hope of a better life for themselves.

Personal Application

Each individual is precious in God’s sight, however young or old he or she may be.

Quotable

My shining feet will never run on early morning lawn; my feet were crushed before they had a chance to greet the dawn. My fingers now will never stretch to touch the winning tape; my race was done before I learned the smallest steps to take. My growing height will never be recorded on a wall; my growth was stopped when I was still unseen and very small. My lips and tongue will never taste the good fruits of the earth; for I myself was judged to be a fruit of little worth. My eyes will never scan the sky for my high-flying kite; for when still blind, destroyed were they in the black womb of night. I’ll never stand upon a hill, spring’s winds in my hair; autumn’s winds of thought closed in on Motherhood’s despair. I’ll never walk the shores of life or know the tides of time; for I was coming but unloved, and that my only crime. Nameless am I, a grain of sand, one of the countless dead; but the deed that made me ashen grey floats on the seas of red.-Fay Clayton