The Wise Men from the East - Part 1

I'm going to do something a little bit different today. Of course, this is the season. For most of the people of the world, this is a very joyous season. They look to Christmas as being the major holiday of the year. A lot of times people get together and they celebrate in its beautiful lights and music, etc. It's interesting that this is probably the biggest holiday of the year, as far as most of the world is concerned, in the western world. It's not me! I'm not squeaky! Is there a way to fix that? Oh, okay. But it's interesting that there are actually only two places in the Bible where the birth of Christ is even mentioned. That's in Matthew 1 and 2. It says very little about it. It gets a little bit there. Then, again, in Luke 2, it touches on it just a little bit. Those are the only three chapters the entire Bible even mentions. They say very little. They don't tell when it occurred or the date or anything much about it. The Bible doesn't make too much of a big deal out of its birth. They don't make that big a thing. You don't even know when it actually occurred. They don't tell you when it actually occurred.

But anyway, you're thinking about this time of the year coming up and so on. It made me think about a particular scripture that I did research on in the past. To me, it's an interesting scripture because it's much misunderstood. A lot of emphasis is put on it, sometimes in plays and things.

In fact, when I was in the ninth grade, I'm talking about Matthew 2, where it talks about the wise man from the East. That's the only place that mentions that. But when I was in the ninth grade in Seattle, in Catherin Blaine Junior High School, they put out a little Christmas play.

I had a part in it. Only time I ever had a part in the play. Only time. I was chosen to be one of the three wise men. I was the only one of the wise men that had a line in the play. The only thing I had to do, I had to spend a lot of weeks rehearsing it to make sure I got it right. My line was, let us go. That was it. And we exited, and that was it. So that's my big stage presence. My acting career was very, very short.

I never had any more acting again after that. But I want to mention a couple of books here. One I purchased. I got back in Seattle. I think it's Shory's bookstore, probably. I don't remember when, many years ago. And that's a book on ancient history. It's Rollins' Ancient History. And this is interesting looking in here. It's actually a two-volume set. I'm quoting from Volume 2.

This is Volume 1 because Volume 2 is a lot worse shape. This covers off of it. But I was looking through here. It's published in 1850. And it was first given to someone here. It's got some descriptions here. It was given to someone in 1856. And then it was given to somebody else in 1860 or 1870. And so on. And it's got that in there. But I picked it up. It used bookstore many, many years ago. But it was published in 1850. So this book is about over 160 years old.

Now this book here, we were at a bookstore. Evelyn could tell you exactly what. But anyway, she saw this book here. And she said, well, this might be interesting because it was going on in the Middle East and all this. And Iran and Iraq and all things in the world. So the history of Iran. Well, it might be interesting about the history of Iran. This book is much different than what you think. I'm going to get into it. But I read it. I thought, wow. That book is quite interesting. Because this is an historian objectively giving a history of the peoples of Iran going back to 1000 B.C.

up to the present. So it covers that whole time period. But it corroborates what Rollins wrote 160 years ago. So I want to talk about that a little bit today because I want to expand on something. I have a lot of scriptures, but I'm not going to have a lot of scriptures today.

I want to go more into history. But like I said, this book on the history of Iran is not what you'd expect from the title. I think that, like I said, it does give a history of those peoples starting from 1000 B.C. to the present. But here's what the author says in the preface of the history of Iran. I'm just going to quote a little bit here. It says, one thing is best explained at the start. Another apparent paradox. Now, the first paradox in the preface of these talks about it is that Iran is not really...

We have this picture of Iran. We think of it as being just barren desert. You see, there's a little bit more to it than that. That's a prime-prime false idea. There is a lot of that. But that's kind of a paradox because it also has mountains and rivers and forests and agriculture and wide climate variations. Now, we don't think of Iran in that way, but if you go to Iran, you go to the whole country. It incorporates all of those things. But what are the other than explain as being another apparent paradox? The other paradox is this.

Iran and Persia are the same country. Now, we think about the Memo Empire, Daniel's Empire, the four major empires that were going to develop. The Babylonian Empire, the Medo-Persian Empire, the Persian Empire, then the Greco-Macedonian Empire, and then the Roman Empire. Well, when you take about the Persian Empire and the history of the Persian Empire and the Bible and so on, he says, Iran and Persia are the same country.

Then he goes on to say this. When those peoples who lived there created an empire that dominated the whole region, the Greeks called it the Persian Empire. But all through the time of those people themselves in that empire, they called themselves Iranians. They never called themselves Persians. They called themselves Iranians. If you go back in research history. And their land, they called their land Iran rather than Persia.

The word Iran derives from a very early times, apparently meaning noble. This book then relates to the history of the Persian Empire and how its history is woven in the pages and prophecies of the Bible. So it's a little different history than what you would take. It ties very much into Bible and Bible prophecy.

Chapter 2 of this book here on the history of Iran is titled, The Iranian Revival.

I read that chapter. I've read the whole book and I just read the first three chapters. Evelyn read it. She's read the whole book, but I've just read the first three chapters. But I read chapter 2 and I'm like, wow! That's very interesting. That ties writing with Rollins' ancient history. It even adds more to it. But it's called, The Iranian Revival. But it actually, it surprisingly touches on the history of the four great world-world empires. The prophesied of Daniel 7, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greco-Macedonian, and the Roman Empire. It especially focuses on the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire. And especially in chapter 2 of this book, it focuses on the Roman Empire leading up to the birth of Christ in the very latter part of the first century B.C. And at the time of Christ, it's even going a little bit into the time of Christ. But what it does, it touches on the early Roman Empire, time leading up to the time of Christ, and it focuses on Rome's greatest rival. You don't read about this. They don't teach it in history. I think there's a reason why they don't. So I'll get to it a little bit later.

It talks about the history of Rome and its greatest rival. And that relates directly to the time of the year we're now entering into. And to our one particular passage in the Gospel of Matthew. Let's turn this... I'm going to have a few scriptures today. I want to go into the name and the history of it. But I'm going to touch on a few scriptures. They're all in chapter 2. So that's the only place you're going to have to really go to. I'm going to mention other things. But mainly Matthew 2 I want to look at today. And especially right now to start with, I'm going to look at the first three verses of Matthew 2. Because when you really understand a lot of things behind it, as Paul Harvey used to say, there is a rest of the story. And in this case, a great rest of the story. A lot more than meets the eye when you read these verses. And they're totally misunderstand by most people in the world. You still don't know the history behind it. Matthew 2, verse 1. Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem. It's the only place it's mentioned. It's not mentioned in any of the Gospels. Just here in Matthew. Saying, Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star, note the 3rd couple of verses, we have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him. Then verse 3. This is a fascinating verse. You have to stop and think, wow! There's got to be more to this story than what you see, you know, depicted by the 3 wise men in the little Christmas stories. When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him. Here are these wise men coming to Jerusalem, and King Herod hears about it.

And the entire city of Jerusalem was troubled when they saw these men coming.

Now, at this time, go back and look at history and do a little research. The city of Jerusalem had a population back 2,000 years ago of about 30,000 people. On the feast times, like Passover and Pentecost and the Fall Feasts, it was swell, because a lot of people come from outlying areas to those feasts in Jerusalem, and it was swell to maybe 60,000 people during those feast times, three times a year. But the regular population was around 30,000.

So a modern Christian partilla of this is that three wise men from the east came to worship. He was born King of the Jews. That's a traditional belief. Now, if there were only three wise men, why would King Herod and all Jerusalem be troubled? See, that doesn't make any sense. You know, you've got 30,000 people there, just at normal times. Probably this time this occurred, it was more than that. But why would they be troubled by three people coming into the city? Why would that trouble everybody?

In fact, you stop and think about it, in a city of even 30,000, you have three men coming into town. Who would even notice them coming into town? Who would even know anything about it or even notice it? So there must be more to the story. Indeed, there is much more.

In fact, there's so much more to the story, it's going to take me two sermons to cover it all. This is going to start to give away some background today. Next time I'm going to have a lot more scriptures to bring into play next time.

But there's many questions, it's racist. I mean, how many wise men were there? Where did they come from? Who were they? What nation did they represent?

What was his star? Some of this is conjectured by... Here I said, what is his star that they had seen and followed? And why were they coming to worship if he was born king of the Jews? Why were they coming to worship him? Why? Is there any way of knowing or discerning the answer to those questions? Well, today I want to look at that a little bit and begin a journey to discover the real truth and the real history behind the wise men from the East, and that's my title. Title is, The Wise Men from the East Part 1.

Because, like I said, there's a lot more to cover than what I can cover. There's actually been some groundwork today. I'm going to get more into other scriptures and things next time, but it takes two sermons to even begin to cover all of them. You can actually take more than that. Well, if we just ask this question, let's begin here. What do these first two verses of Matthew's Gospel, just the first two, what do they tell us? Well, they tell us more than we might think on the surface. Number one, they tell us, They came to Jerusalem in the days of Herod the king. That gives us a time frame. That would be Herod the Great, who reigned as the king over Judea from 730 BC until either 4 BC or 3 BC, depending on your source.

This then gives us a time period as to when this occurred. It had to have occurred just a few years before the time reprised.

He was born right around those early years between 30 and 3 or 4 BC. Now, what else can we learn from these two verses? Well, they inquired, saying, Where is he who has been born, who has been born king of the Jews? So, Matthew doesn't tell us how old Christ was at this time, but in Matthew 2, verse 13, it says, He was a young child. Now, all the scenes you get depict, these three wives come in and you see a little baby in a crib.

But this is the time these wise men showed up. Christ was a young child, not a baby or an infant. It doesn't say how old he was, but he was more than just an infant or newborn baby at this time. He was already a young child. So, who knows? Probably by another verse of Herod, he was under 2 years old, but he was somewhere around a year old, or between 1 and 2 years old. Because, you know, a little bit later, Herod wants to have this child killed, and he goes through Jerusalem and wants all the male children to under-view 2 years of age killed, trying to kill who was going to be born king of the Jews.

Of course, at that time, Herod was the king of the Jews. But there's more questions surrounding that as well. But he had to be a young... He was a young child, not an infant. Another question, what would these two verses indicate as to who these wise men were, generally speaking? I'm just very general. Were they likely to be non-Israelites, non-descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

Or were they more likely to tend to be Israelites, or Jews, Jews or Israelites, descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? It lists some extent here. They had to know scriptures, didn't they? Because they knew about the time this coming individual, this person, this Messiah, who was going to be born as the king of the Jews, they had to know some prophecies about that, when that time frame was.

Like, for instance, the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9, verses 24-27. That prophecy pinpoints the time frame of when this Christ child would be born, and about the time frame of when he was going to arrive and be there. So they had to understand those prophecies. Those have to have been Israelites, or descendants of Israel, or Judah, to know that non-Israelites would not have known those prophecies or understood them. So the answer is, obviously, these had to be more likely, they had to be Israelites and Jews.

What about, again, as I mentioned, I emphasize His Star. A little bit of conjecture here, so I'm not going to try to say for sure, but I think it's pretty obvious to me what His Star was. See, I mean, I asked myself, what, this took a point here, why does it say His Star rather than A Star? You follow the star. Well, there has been a lot of conjecture as to what this Star was, but if we really think about it, I think, to me at least, the answer becomes fairly obvious. Matthew 2, verse 9, When they heard the king, they departed, and behold, the star here, which they had seen in the east, went before them, so they were able to follow it, until it came and stood over where the young child was.

So what did His Star, as we earlier said, the verse 2 was, is His Star do? It stood over where the young child was. Now, that couldn't be, to me, that could not be a star up in the heaven, because you can't pinpoint something on the earth from that. It had to be a different kind of a star than that. It had to be something much more down to earth.

To me, this indicates the star here was an angel, because angels are called stars throughout the Bible, many places. So I think His Star was His angel. That's what I take it anyway. That's what I would just come up with, as being the most likely explanation of what it was. In any case, this was an angel that was specifically assigned by God to carry out this particular task, leading these wise men to where the Christ child was, and to oversee and protect the young child and to guide these wise men. That's what it would come across to me. It makes more sense. But notice how angels, again, play a significant role in the events recorded here in Matthew, chapters 1 and 2.

Notice that. Matthew 1, verse 20.

While He thought about these things, Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, appeared to Joseph, in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you, Mary, your wife. For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. For she became pregnant, and she wasn't married. Don't worry. You can take her for a while. It was God's Spirit that conceived this child, not some other man. And then again, chapter 2, verse 24. Matthew 1, verse 24. He's showing that angels play a big role in the events here. Matthew 1, verse 24. Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife. Again, watching this angel again. Chapter 2, verse 13.

Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. Again, saying.

Verse 19, chapter 2, verse 19. Now when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt. So, angels play a big role in the events here, obviously. So, all the evidence points to his star, we read in Matthew 2, verse 2, as being an angel.

But now let's ask this. This is a very interesting question to ask. It can lead us in order to learn a lot more. What don't these two verses tell us regarding these wise men? What don't they tell us?

Well, they don't tell us how many of them there were. It doesn't say. It doesn't say three.

The idea that there were just three of them comes from Matthew 2, 11. Since three gifts are specifically mentioned. Let's read that. Matthew 2, verse 11.

And when they had come into the house, so by this time, Christ wasn't in a manger. He was a young child in a house. He wasn't in a manger at this time, where he was born. He was in a house by this time as a young child. And when they had come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to him, gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

So that's why there's three things mentioned here. Gold, frankincense, and myrrh. So they figured, well, each one of them brought one of these gifts. And that's where the idea of three wise men comes from.

But it doesn't indicate to say that. Just as these are gifts that were brought to them by these wise men, how many of them there were, or whatever. It doesn't indicate that there are just three gifts. But actually, in this one verse here, Matthew 2, 11, there's a wealth of knowledge.

These gifts are called treasures.

The Greek word translated treasures literally means wealth.

These wise men deposited wealth to this young child.

Why would these wise men from the east want to bestow wealth on a young child?

You know, a person who's wise isn't going to throw a lot of wealth on a young child. Normally, they have to give it to somebody else to be their guardian. Of course, that would be the case here as well. But anyway, it indicates there was quite a great deal of wealth in this.

And of course, if you look at any and understand these things at that time, there would have been quite a bit of wealth. Because gold, frankincense, and some more were all extremely valuable gifts. They were undoubtedly worth a great deal. They were a great deal. Those things were very, very valuable. Gold, frankincense was rare and very valuable, so was murder.

They were all very valuable.

And again, just think back 2,000 years ago, and the way they traveled, they didn't have airplanes or trains or anything like that. They had to go by horseback or walk.

So, what would it have been like traveling in those days, especially carrying a great deal of wealth? Well, it would have been very dangerous, wouldn't it?

I mean, there were robbers and thieves were everywhere, if you read some of the history of that time back then, are ready to kill and steal whatever they could. So, there is really no way, if you think of it in a practical sense, that three men, just three men, could make it to Jerusalem, carrying a treasure trove of wealth without being killed or robbed. You know, out there, some of them would get the word, and they'd been stolen.

Unless they had an army with them.

In fact, the sense is, they did have an army with them.

I mean, if you had an army coming into the city of Jerusalem, then Herod would learn of that, wouldn't he? He would know of that, and they could be troubled by that, depending on what army it was.

But actually, in fact, if you go through some research, they probably did have an army with them.

And when the army rode in Jerusalem, Herod and all Jerusalem was troubled with him. Why? Because they knew where that army had come from, and they knew its reputation.

Because it was an army that came from the one nation.

This is very... You don't think this is an issue, but it's very interesting. It came from the one nation Rome was never able to conquer or subdue. Never.

Not until that empire eventually fell, much later.

There was an army that was even greater than the Roman Empire in many respects, although you don't read much about it in history in school today.

They talk a lot about the Roman Empire, they don't talk about this empire.

But this empire, where these wise men came from, lasted nearly 500 years, nearly as long as the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire lasted almost 500 years. So did this empire.

What empire was that? It was a Parthen Empire.

And again, like I said, I have a two-volume set here I just showed you from Rawlins. It goes through a lot of history, and a lot of the history it covers about the Parthen Empire.

It was written by Charles Rawlins.

It was published back in 1850, originally, this particular volume I have. I know it's now in a print, but you can still get it. I know that one. I Googled it this morning, just to see. And yeah, you can still buy some kind of copies of it, use copies of it. And other writings by Rawlins as well. He was quite a historian and wrote many, many volumes.

But here is what...

I've got it down here.

Here's what Rawlins' ancient history says in Volume 2, page 276, on Parthia.

The Parthen Empire was one of the most powerful and considerable that ever was in the East.

Very weak in its beginnings, as is common, it extended itself little by little over all upper Asia, and made even the Romans tremble.

Its duration is generally allowed to be 474 years, of which 254 were before Jesus Christ, and 220 after him.

And the Parthen Empire was located due east of the Roman Empire. Now, I wasn't able to put this up on a screen, I think it was just a small group of others. This is the map. Now, it's hard to see this, but here's the Roman Empire over here. It doesn't get the whole thing. This is the Roman Empire over here, it goes down here. And this here, this Arabian Desert, it says I've got it not here. That was also part of the Roman Empire. That eastern part of the Roman Empire was desert. It's kind of a buffer zone between it and Parthen. This is the Parthen Empire here, you can see it's huge, and extends way down further than this. This is Jerusalem over here. This is Babylon here. And here's the Euphrates River right along here. Euphrates River was a dividing line between Parthen and the Roman Empire. So, this gives you a little bit of an idea. But it was a very, very large empire. It actually was about two-thirds the size of the continental United States. It extended over 1,000 miles from north to south, and nearly 2,000 miles from east to west. So, here you've got the Roman Empire, about 1,000 miles from north to south. You've got the Euphrates River. You've got the Persian Empire 1,000 miles north to south, due east of it. And that Persian Empire then extends east to west, west to east. It extends 2,000 miles, that direction over there. So, there's only one place these wisemen from the east could come from. They had to come from the Parthenian Empire. There's no other place they could come from. So, that tells us where they came from. Again, they shared a common border, Euphrates River. In the center of the Parthenian Empire was due east of Jerusalem. Thus, there's only one nation the wisemen in the east could have come from, and that would have been Parthia. And it was a huge empire. It took in the city of Babylon, which was located on the Euphrates River, just due east of Jerusalem, in the area which is now Iraq, and Iran, that area is actually in Iraq. Babylon was now ancient Babylon, the roads of Asia were in Iraq today. But it also took in what today, the Parthenian Empire, it took in what today are portions of the territories of eastern Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, portions of India, and back then, some portions of what has now become the Soviet Union. It was a power that rivaled Rome, and before whom Rome trembled. I ought you and me to tell us about that in history, but that's the case.

So the first two verses of Matthew tell us a great deal, but the thing they don't tell us why. Why would wise men from the east, wise men from Parthia, want to worship? He was born king of the Jews. Well, actually, I'm going to look at that next time. There are a lot of scriptures back of that too. We'll look at that next time in Parthia. Right now, let's look at this. Why Rome trembled? Why did they tremble at the thought of a Parthian invasion? These Parthians came in there. They said they all trembled, all Jerusalem. You can hear it in all Jerusalem trembled. Why? See, what happened about 50 years before Christ was born? Something happened. What happened in 53 BC? If something happened in 53 BC, it ties into all of this. In 53 BC, a Roman general by the name of Crassus, C-R-A-S-S-U-S, he set out to conquer Parthia. Because the Romans, they were imperialistic. They wanted to expand. They wanted to take over the whole world. And they'd taken over much of the world in the West. Now they wanted to conquer the East, and that man Parthia. So, in 53 BC, this Roman general by the name of Crassus set out to conquer Parthia. Euphrates River, like I said, was a border. So, to invade Parthia, the first thing you had to do was to build a bridge over the Euphrates River for all of his troops to pass over into Parthia. What happened as his troops began passing over the bridge to enter Parthia? This is from Rollins' ancient history on Parthia, Volume 2, page 278.

Crassus had seven legions of foot and nearly 4,000 on horses, and his many light-armed soldiers and archers, which amounted to more than 40,000 men. So, Crassus is going to invade Parthia with 40,000 men. Pretty good-sized army. That is to say, it was one of the finest armies the Romans ever set on foot.

When his troops were passing the bridge, he had laid over the Euphrates River, a dreadful storm of thunder and lightning drove in the face of the soldiers so as to prevent them from going on. At the same time, a black cloud, out of which burst an impetuous whirlwind, attempted with thunderclaps and lightning, fell upon the bridge and broke down part of it. The Roman troops were seized with fear. He saw the thing about that. He thought, wow, I wonder, did God have anything to do with that? Was God trying to give a warning to the Parthians that they had better not try to invade Rome? Have you known that there's a number of the Romans, the Romans, the Romans, I should say, that they shouldn't invade Parthia? It would appear that God was on the side of the Parthians at this side, but why would that be? Is there anything to have you do, anything about what's going to take place at that time over in Rome, the Roman Empire? The Crassus and his Roman army, they end up, their history says they eventually regrouped and they prepared the bridge and they went anyway. So was this impetuous storm a warning from God to the Romans? Could have been, I don't know. But when Crassus and the Roman army finally engaged the Parthians, it's very interesting what happened. It was recorded in Rollins' ancient history and in the book, The History of Iran, which confirms what Rollins wrote. Here are some Rollins, Volume 2, pages 278 to 284 on Parthia. The Roman soldiers had imagined that the Parthians would never dare come to blows with them. They now say, contrary to their expectations, that they were to undergo great battles and great dangers. After some days in the enemy's country, Romans in the enemy's country, where it was difficult to have any intelligence, the Roman scouts came in full speed to inform Crassus, the general of the Roman army, that a very numerous army of the Parthians was advancing with great order and boldness to attack him immediately. The news threw the whole camp into great trouble and consternation. The Romans were much astonished to suddenly see their whole army surrounded on all sides. Crassus immediately gave orders for his archers and light-armored foot soldiers to charge them, but they could not execute those orders for long, for they were compelled by a shower of arrows to retreat and cover themselves. Their disorder and dismay now began when they experienced the rapidity and force of those arrows, against which no armor was proof and was penetrated alike wherever they hit. The Parthians did dreadful executions and made deep moves because they drew their bows to the utmost. The Strings discharged their arrows, which were of an extraordinary weight, with an impetuosity and force that nothing could resist. The Romans were remarked for every arrow shot at them and died a slow and cruel death. Not being able to support the pain they suffered, they rolled themselves upon the sands with the arrows in their bodies and expired in that manner in exquisite torments, or endeavoring to tear it out by force with bearded points in the arrows, which only made their wounds larger and increased their pain. Most of them died in this manner, and those who were still alive were no longer in any condition to act. When young grasses exhorted them to charge, they showed him their hands nailed to their bucklers and their feet riveted to the ground. It was impossible of them either to defend themselves or to flee.

See, the Parkends, you find, I go to a little bit of history, they were extremely skilled marksmen, even riding on horses. They were thus greatly feared by any who would go against them in battle. But here's how Rollins ends this section on this particular battle. Ancient History, Parthia, Volume 2, pages 278-284. This was a terrible night for the Romans. They had no thought to be either in turning their dead or addressing their wounds, of whom the greatest part died in the most horrible torments. Every man was solemnly intent upon his own particular distress, for they all saw plenty that could not escape. Crassus, at the same time, was killed by Aparthian. The loss of this battle was the most terrible blow the Romans had received. They had 20,000 men killed. Remember they sent 40,000? They had 20,000 men killed and 10,000 taken prisoners. The rest made their escape by various means. Again, remember that this army started off with 40,000? In this one battle in 53 BC, they lost 75%. Half of them were killed and a quarter of them were taken prisoner. This is something more amazing.

Here's how Rollins ends this section. I just read that. Here's what it says in The History of Iran, which confirms it and adds more details. In the book of The History of Iran, it confirms what Rollins wrote and adds more. This is A History of Iran by Michael Axworthy, pages 36 and 37. In 53 BC, Marcus Crassus, a fabulously rich Roman politician in general, who had destroyed the slave of oldest Spartacus, became the new governor of Roman Syria. Holding a main conquest to the east, Crassus marched an army of some 40,000 men, as we just read, in Rollins, east to Qahei, C-A-R-R-H-A-E. At Qahei, Crassus's army was met in the open plain by a smaller but fast-moving force of about 10,000... Oh, that sounds like my phone! ...of about 10,000 horsemen, including large numbers of horse archers. So, I mean, this is an interesting thing. There were 10,000 Parthians and 40,000 Romans. In Michael Axworthy goes on to say this, The Parthians confronted Crassus with the kind of fighting that the Romans had not previously encountered, and against which they had no answer. Hour after hour, the arrows rallied down on the Romans, and despite the Romans' heavy armor, the powerful Parthian war blows frequently zinged and arrow past the edge of the shield, found a gap of the neck between the body armor and helmet, or wounded of soldiers unprotected at hands and feet. The full strength of Parthian horse load archers turned on the Romans, from any castret, more and more of them were hit by arrows. Crassus's son pulled his men back to a small hill, where they were surrounded and eventually killed.

So then finally, Crassus attempted to negotiate with the Parthian generals, Suryan, S-U-R-E-N, only to be killed and discuffle. The survivors of the Roman army withdrew and disordered back to Roman Syria. Meanwhile, as many as 10,000 Roman prisoners were marched off by the Parthians to the north-east of the Empire. So the Parthians, with an army of 10,000, solely defeated, the Romans with an army of 40,000, because they were that skilled in war, and that skilled with their arrows, that accurate. So that's in a separately written history. Michael Axworth, in his book, A History of Iran, first published in 2008, in the copy we have of the 2016, so it's from a very recent, confirmed what was written by Rollins over 150 years ago. Rollins then makes this comment. At this time, Rome was becoming respected and dreaded by all nations. She was becoming mister to the most important kingdoms of Earth, Asia and Africa. Yet in the most exalted height of her glory, she saw her glory suddenly fall to the ground in her attack upon a people formed out of the assemblage of an Eastern Empire, whose valor she despised. So complete a victory was shown to those highly conquerors of the world by a rival empire and a remote people, who were capable of setting bound to the Romans ambitious projects and making them tremble for their own safety. It showed the Romans might be overthrown and pitched battle and restrained. The check received by Crassus from the Parthians was a block on the Roman Empire. So, that's probably why Parthians have all been a sponge from history. We've all been taught about the greatness of Rome, but how many were taught about the history of the Parthian Empire? Of the one empire Rome could never conquer or subdue. Maybe another reason we have not been taught that history of the Parthian Empire is because of who those people were. Most of them were descendants of the House of Israel and the House of Judah. They were Israelites and Jews. But after the Battle of Carre, there was yet one additional Roman general who decided he wanted to take on Parthian and become a hero and conquer Parthian. How was somebody we're all very familiar with? Mark Anthony. General Mark Anthony. Here's what Michael Achworthy records in his book, The History of Iran, on pages 38 and 39 about Mark Anthony. The next Roman to test the Parthian in a major way was Mark Anthony. In 36 BC, he took an army of more than double that of the size of Crassus into the same area of Upper Mesopotamia. So he took an army of 80,000 with him to invade Parthia.

Continuing, he says, Anthony soon encountered many of the same difficulties that had frustrated Crassus. He was forced to retreat through Armenia in the winter cold, losing as many as 24,000 men. Roland concludes the entire episodes of Rome, and is encountered with a Parthian by saying this. Any word, the Romans could never subject the Parthians to their yoke. That nation was like a wall of brass, which with impregnable force resisted the most violent attacks against their power. Then Michael Aksworth, he adds this on page 39 of the History of Iran, after Augustus eventually achieved supremacy in the Roman Empire, he followed a policy, diplomacy with the Parthians, he created a period of peace. In 30 AD, Mark Anthony wanted to be the lead of Rome. He wanted to come to the Emperor of Rome, but he died in 30 BC. Then there was a fight to who was going to be the next Emperor of Rome, and finally Octavian won that and became Augustus Caesar. It took him a couple of years to get into that position. But what he did, and once he became Emperor, he signed a peace treaty with Parthia. He created a period of peace. And that period of peace, interestingly, lasted 100 years, or throughout the large portion of the first century AD. I find that very interesting, because what did that assure? It assured that at a time of Christ was born, and at a time then that he would become our Savior, and he grew to be a man, and he'd die for us, which was about age 33. And then at that time, of course, he had to have the twelve apostles, had to go forward and spread the gospel and start the New Testament church, which he did throughout the first century AD. This peace agreement assured that there would be no war between Rome and the Parthian Empire during that time when God was going to be starting his New Testament church. There would be peace, and the apostles would have the ability and freedom to travel all through that world, even into Parthia. And we know they did go into Parthia and got converts there, because we can find out that next time when we read there were converts from Parthia that became Christians and followers of Christ, especially in the Bible. So we'll cover that next time. But it just assured that. You can look kind of back and say, well, God had a hand in this, because this thought about a peace agreement that would assert that the world was at a time of peace when the New Testament church would be founded, and when the apostles would have to travel widely in that area to preach the gospel and to gain converts. So that's a fascinating part of this whole story.

About six years after Mark Anthony's defeat by the Parthians, he was defeated by Octavian. Again, I just mentioned he became just as a Caesar. Anthony actually died on August 1st, 30 B.C. in Alexandria, Egypt, along with his, I don't know if she would call her his wife or his lover, Cleopatra, we all know Cleopatra, who was, Cleopatra was the last of the Ptolemies, the kings of the north and south, Daniel 11.

Cleopatra was actually the last of the kings, she was the queen of the last of the Ptolemies, and she died or actually committed suicide, along with Mark Anthony on August 1st, 30 B.C. and that ended the history of the kings of the south, Daniel 11. But that gives a sense of background to understanding the history behind Matthew 2, verses 1-3, to understanding who these wise men from the east were and why Herod and all Jews was troubled at their arrival in Jerusalem. They brought their treasure to he who was born king of the Jews. But there's still much more to the story. Again, I haven't answered that question yet.

Why did this contingent of the Parthians want to bestow a great deal of wealth and treasure on he was born king of the Jews? Why? How did these Jews and Israelites end up in Parthians? What kind of a structured government did the Parthians have? How did they select their king? Aren't they out of king? How did they select their king? Does that tie in any way to Jesus being born king of the Jews and why they wanted to go there?

And who was their king and what title did the Parthian king go by? He went by a very interesting title. A title that belongs to Christ. But they had a reason they went by that title. And again, why were they so interested in he was born king of the Jews? What was their ultimate goal? What was the Parthian's ultimate goal in coming there?

Well, I'll try to cover most of that next time in Part 2, where I've been from the east. And that'll be January 27th here in Detroit. I'll have to change my schedule. I'm going to be coming... instead of coming on the first half of the month, I'm going to be coming on the fourth half of the month. I'll have to change things around, because I'm bringing Michael Phelps more and more into play here. He'll be coming twice a month here.

And I'm going to have to just take Ann Arbor once, Detroit once, Flint once, and Gaylord once. And I have four churches. And so I'm going to have to switch it around a little bit, because I can schedule Mike more often. So I'm going to have to come here from now on on the fourth Sabbath of each month, starting in January. So I'll be back here again on January 27th to get Part 2.

Before I close, I would like to mention one more thing, as we also... We'll see next time. Some parties became Christians, as I mentioned. We'll see. Some became members of the New Testament Church. We'll see that, especially when you read the episode on the Day of Pentecost. But there was also a dark side to all of this, especially in the Roman Empire, in the time of Christ. Because about this same time, a new mystery religion began spreading in the Roman Empire. And here is what a history of Iran, written by this historian just recently, 2008... Here's what he wrote in a history of Iran regarding a group of...

this religious group called Mithriism. It's about the religion of Mithriism. He writes about the religion of Mithriism. And here's what he writes... It was kind of a secret society, a little like the Freemasons. Its tenets included mystery ceremonies, initiation rites, and a hierarchy of grades of membership. The period of the cult's early population and spread was the first century A.D. at the time of Christ.

It is thought to have had an important influence on the early New Testament church, as the Christian bishop... the Christian... so-called co-op, that in quotes... The Christian bishops made converts and tried to make the new religion as acceptable and possible to former pagans.

In other words, this was becoming a widespread religion in the Roman Empire. And these some bishops and Christians wanted to bring these pagans into Christianity. So they had a secret... they synchronized with them, tried to blend the two religions together to make it acceptable. That's what they end up doing when you read the history. Were they successful in bringing some of these pagans of Mithriism into the Christian church?

Some of these so-called bishops. Michael Axworthy on page 41 of the History of Iran then says this... I'm just about to conclude. This is the conclusion. He says, Mithras' followers believed that their God, they had Mithra, they worshipped. They believed he was born on December 25th of a virgin, with shepherds as his first worshippers. Oh, wow! That's interesting. So I'll end there. Pick up the story in part two with the wife of Mithrath next time. So we'll end there. You can enjoy some fellowship in snacks.