Wise Men from the East-part 1

Today I wanted to get something. I was reading Matthew about a week or so ago, and I went across the Scripture and the verse there. I thought, wow, I remember the history behind that. That was a lot of history behind that particular verse, and I thought about it. And I know they'd never heard this series back in Ann Arbor, Detroit. I did actually give it here, a version of it. I've updated it a little bit, but I gave it here, but it was 20 years ago.

Those of you who were here like 19, 20 years ago, you'll probably at least remember the title anyway. I don't know how much details you might remember. There are a few of you here that probably most of you have not. But I just get very excited thinking about it, how much history there is in there, and what the thrill-tooth of that, compared to how it presents the Scripture at this time of the year, especially.

And recently, Evelyn was going through some used books at a library. No, no, no, she was out in Barnes and Noble, I think, and looking at some new books. And she saw this one particular book. See, I've got it here. And she said, well, that looks interesting because of what's going on in the Middle East and everything right now in Iraq and Iran. And it's called A History of Iran by Michael Axworthy. And she said, well, that might be interesting, a little bit of the history of Iran, with all the situations going on down there right now, and what's happening in the world that has to do with Iran.

And so she decided to buy this book, and she read it. And she was telling me a little bit about it. Well, we wouldn't think that would be in there. And so then I said, well, I'll read it. I haven't finished reading it yet. I've read about two-thirds of it now. I'm right up to 1979 now. I don't know what happened in 1979. But it starts off about 1000 B.C. and gives the history of Iran all the way up to the present. But in English, Evelyn got this book and read it.

And then after she finished, I started reading it. I thought, wow, this is not what I would expect to find in this book from the title. Again, even though it does give the true history of Iran beginning from around 1000 B.C. to the present. But here's what the author says. It's interesting what it says. And I just quoted this here. What it says in the preface.

It says, one thing is best explained at the start, another apparent paradox. The first paradox is that Iran is not all—we think of Iran. You think of just barren desert, pretty much barren. He said that's not really—that's not a true picture of Iran. He says a lot of it is. But the first paradox is that Iran is not all barren desert. It has mountains and rivers and forests and agriculture and wide climate variations as well. But what then did the author explain as being another apparent paradox? The other paradox is this. He says, Iran and Persia are the same country.

So when you talk about Iran, you're talking about Persia. I thought, well, that's interesting. That gives a different perspective. It's a book about a history of Persia. He goes on to say in the preface, he says, When these people who lived there created an empire that dominated the whole region, the Greeks called it the Persian Empire. That's what the Greeks called it. But all through that time, the people of those empires called themselves Iranians and they're land Iran.

The word derives from the very earliest times, apparently meaning noble. The book then relates the history of the Persian Empire, which I found very fascinating because that's a part of Bible history, as we know. And how its history is woven in the pages of prophecies of the Bible. Chapter 2 in this book, which most of my information I got here is from Chapter 2, plus another book I'll mention in a minute.

But Chapter 2 is entitled, The Iranian Revival. But it actually, and somewhat surprisingly, touches on the history of the four great world-ruling empires as prophesied in Daniel 7. Babylon, Medo-Persia, the Greco-Macedonian Empire, and the Roman Empire. And especially, it touches on the early Roman Empire, at the time leading up to and up to and including the time of Christ, and on Rome's greatest rival. So, and the history of Rome's greatest rival relates directly to the time of the year we are now entering into.

And to one particular passage in the Gospel of Matthew, which I was reading this passage, I remember there's a lot of history behind this particular passage. Let's turn and read that. It had to do with things that take place in the Christian world this time of the year. Matthew 2, the first three verses. And by the way, I don't have too far to go in the book. We're writing going to be in most of the scriptures I have are in Matthew 2.

Because I want to give you a lot of history behind this, which I think is fascinating. Matthew 2, beginning in verse 1, It says, When I heard this, he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him. Now, Matthew is the only Gospel that records this particular passage. But it's interesting to get a little bit of history. If you go do some research, you can find this out and just Google. But at that particular time, just about 2000 years ago, right around 2000 years ago, at that time Jerusalem had a population of around 30,000. That was a normal population, everyday population. During feast times, it would often double to 60,000. But normally, all during the regular time of the year, we'd have a population of about 30,000.

Keep that in mind. 30,000. That was 2000 years ago. Now, our modern Christian portrayal of this event here, recorded in Matthew 2, is that these wise men from the East came to worship. He was born King of the Jews.

But it portrays it as three wise men. It says there were three wise men came in. That's what all the scenes will say. They showed three wise men. Let me ask this question. If there were only three wise men, why would King Herod and all Jerusalem with a population of 30,000, why would they tremble? Why would they be troubled? Why would all Jerusalem with 30,000 be troubled with three wise men coming into the city of Jerusalem?

Would you even know that they were there? How would three wise men coming into a population of 30,000 even be noticed? Why would King Herod be troubled by that? Why would he be troubled by these three men coming into a city of 30,000? They wouldn't even be noticed. So there must be more to the story. Indeed, there is much more to the story when you do a bit of research and background. In fact, there's so much more to the story, you can't even cover it all in one sermon. It takes two sermons to cover it, and even there, that's rushing it. But how many wise men were there really? Where did they come from?

Can we know? Can we know where they came from? Yes, we can. It doesn't tell us, but we can know. Who were they? Who were they really? What nation did they represent? What was his star, quote-unquote, in verse 2, that they had seen?

And why were they coming to worship he would be born king of the Jews? Why would they be coming to do that? Is there any way of knowing or discovering the answers to those questions? So day then, in part one, we'll begin a journey to discover the real truth and the real history behind the wise men from the east. The title for my sermon here this afternoon is, A Wise Men from the East, Part 1. First of all, let me ask this question. What do these first two verses here, just the first two verses of Matthew's Gospel, what do they tell us?

They tell us more than we might think. Number one, they tell us they came to Jerusalem in the days of Herod the king. Well, that would have to be Herod the Great, who reigned as king over Judea from 37 BC until 4 BC, or around 43 BC, depending on the source. So that then gives us a time period as to when this occurred. We were reading in Matthew 2 here, sometime between 37 and 43 BC, just before right around the time that Christ was born. What else can we learn from these two verses?

They inquired, saying, where is he who has been born? Past tense. So Matthew doesn't tell us how old Christ was at this time. Verse 13 says he was a young child. Chapter 2, verse 13. I'm pointing it out because all the depictions you get this time of the year with these three wise men come in to bring their guests to the baby Jesus.

He's an infant and a manger. But this accounts as he was an infant and a major. He was a young child. Not only that, he was living in a house with his parents at the time of the little seed. So he was no longer an infant, as most Christmas scenes depict.

Another question. Why would these two verses indicate as to who these wise men were generally speaking? We'll get into specifically who they were next time, but who were they generally speaking? Would there be any way of knowing? Well, we can tell something here. We can know who they were generally speaking.

Who would be interested in the birth of this coming Messiah? Who would be wanting to bring gifts to him? But who would even be interested in that? Would they more likely be non-Israelites? Or would they more likely be Israelites? Would they more likely be descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Who, at least to some extent, were familiar with the Old Testament scrolls and the prophecies concerning the birth of a Messiah. Like maybe the 70-week prophecy in Daniel 7.

Excuse me, not Daniel 7, but Daniel 9. The 70-week prophecy in Daniel 9, verses 24-27 is a 70-week prophecy given about the time this Messiah was going to be born. You'd have to think, then, that these wise men, whoever they were, and however many of them there were, they would have known about that prophecy and that this Messiah was going to be born about this time. So they'd more likely be Israelites who are familiar with the Old Testament scrolls, not non-Israelites, generally speaking.

What about His star? Why does it say His star rather than a star? Later it does say a star, but it first calls it His star. There's been a lot of conjecture as to what His star was, but really think about it. I think the answer becomes pretty obvious that it's symbolic of something. What did His star do? Matthew 2, verse 9, When they heard the king, they departed, and behold, the star which they had seen in the east went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

Now, that can't be some star up in the heavens, because you can't have a star up in the heaven pinpoint in what exact spot you're supposed to be. So it tells me that this star was an angel that directed them to this particular place. Stars are often referred to, or angels I should say, are often referred to as stars in the Bible. So His star indicates that this is an angel that was specifically assigned by God to carry out this particular task, to oversee and protect the young child and to guide these wise men to His location. In fact, even if you just look at here just for a second, we'll look at a couple of other verses here, and we'll notice how angels play a very significant role in the events recorded here in Matthew chapters 1 and 2. Matthew 1, verse 20, just to point this out. Angels play a very significant role in all these events. Matthew 1, verse 20, while He thought about these, He was talking about Joseph, Mary's husband, when Joseph thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him 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 by the Holy Spirit, who was hesitant when he found out she was pregnant. He married her yet, and he was worried, and the angel says, no, he's what's conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit, of God. Verse 24, then Joseph, chapter 1, then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took to him his wife. Chapter 2, verse 13, now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, and then Matthew 2, verse 19, now when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to dream to Joseph in Egypt, let him know it was safe to come back. So all the evidence point to his star as being an angel. Now let's ask this, what don't these two verses tell us?

What don't these two verses tell us regarding these wise men from the east? Well, they don't tell us how many there were, do they? There's nothing here that says there were three of them. They don't tell us how many.

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

And when they had come into the house, so he's not out there in a manger, and he's not an infant, he's a young child dwelling in his parents' house with Joseph and Mary, his parents. So he's a young child going in a house. How old is he? Well, Harold wants to kill every child under two, so he's somewhere between maybe one and two years old. He's under two years of age, but he's a young child. Probably somewhere around one year of age, somewhere in there. Verse 11 again. And when they had come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him, these wise men from the east. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to him, gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

So because it says three things here, gold, frankincense, and myrrh, they figured, well, there were three wise men bringing, each one bringing a gift, so three gifts, three wise men. But that's not what the Scripture says. It just says, these are things they brought them. But it's just this one verse here. In verse 11, there is a wealth of knowledge. If you think down and think about it and analyze it. These gifts are called treasures. And the Greek word translated treasures literally means, if you look it up, it literally means wealth. They brought him a great deal of wealth. Why would these wise men from the east want to bestow wealth on this young child? Why? A person, you wouldn't think he'd want to do that. Of course, I had to be given the custody of his parents, but why would they want to bestow a lot of wealth on him?

And then it says, gold, frankincense, and myrrh, those three things were all extremely valuable gifts that were undoubtedly worth a great deal back at that time. Those were very, very valuable. They were a treasure trove of wealth, if you will. So now I've bring back to another question. These wise men, how many there were, whoever they were, they came from the east. If you get on a map, we'll get to it in a little bit here, but you get to a map back at that time, and wherever they came from the east, they would have quite a long journey. We had to go through some desert area as you get a map out and look at where the Roman Empire was and what the eastern part of the Roman Empire was like. You see, they had to cross through some barren land out there. The eastern part of the Roman Empire was kind of barren. But what would have been like traveling with wealth from where they came from to Jerusalem? Well, it would have been very dangerous.

Robbers and thieves were everywhere, ready to kill and steal whatever they could, if you look back at the history of that time. So there's no way three men could make it to Jerusalem carrying a treasure trove of wealth. Somebody would have found out about a gotten word and had gotten in there and either killed them or stolen what they had. Robbers would have come in and done that, unless they had a small army with them. And when you do some research, you find out they did have a small army with them. There's a lot more to this story than meets the eye.

And when that army, a small army, came in with these wise men, however many there were, wowed into Jerusalem with them, it says, Herod and all Jerusalem was troubled with him.

Why? Well, because when this army, with these wise men, came into Jerusalem, word got to him very quickly, got to King Herod, and he was troubled. Why was he troubled? Because he knew who they were. He knew where they had come from, and he knew their reputation.

It was a small army that came from the one nation that Rome was never able to conquer or subdue. Now, you think of the Roman Empire, which you might have been taught in school, you might think the Roman Empire was the greatest empire that ever existed, and they conquered the whole world. There was one empire they were never able to conquer until much, much later, way back towards the end of the Roman Empire, back 300 years after Christ, they were finally able to kind of do it to an extent, very toward the end of this other empire. But they could not, could never subdue this empire, and they feared this empire greatly. Rome did.

It was an army that in many respects, excuse me, it was an empire, I should say, this empire in the East was an empire that in many respects was even greater than the Roman Empire, but you don't read much about it in history. It's just about been expunged from history.

But this empire lasted as long as the Roman Empire, lasted nearly 500 years.

What empire was that? It was a Parthian Empire. I have a two-volume set of Rollins' ancient history.

This is quite a book. It's hard to read because it has about four-point print. You've got to have a magnifying glass. But I found this, I got this at a used bookstore in Seattle, Shory's bookstore in Seattle. They're one of the largest used bookstores in the United States. It's got thousands and thousands of volumes. But I was in there many, many, many moons ago, and they had this two-volume set of Rollins' ancient history. I looked at it a little bit and thought, well, that looks interesting. It's very similar to Rollins' and a lot of you have heard of Rollins' and this is Rollins' but they're very similar. This is volume one here because I have volume two at home. I have most of my information coming from volume two, but the cover is off of volume two. It's been worn off. This one's in better shape, so I bought this to show you. This is volume one, Rollins' ancient history. This was actually first published in 1850. This particular volume that I have here was published in 1866. It's now, of course, way out of print, but I did go to Amazon and found out you can find used copies of something similar to this, Rollins' history. I'm not sure if it's the same volume as this, but some of those are still on. You can get them used from Amazon.

But again, this is an empire lasted nearly 500 years. But here's what Rollins' ancient history says in volume two, page 276, regarding Parthia. Rollins' ancient history, Parthia, volume two, page 276, says this, The Parthian 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 it 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 Parthian Empire was located due east of the Roman Empire. Now, you can't see this very well. I'm going to hold it up anyway because it's got color-coded. I printed this off on the Internet. This red over here is part of the Roman Empire, which is standing about 1,000 miles north and south, and about 100, 150 miles east and west. This is the Roman Empire. This over here, this right, it says Arabian Desert, but it actually was back at the time of Christ, it was a part of the Roman Empire. This is just kind of desert land. It was part of the Roman Empire. This is the Parthian Empire over here. The Parthian Empire here in green, standing 1,000 miles north to south, and 2,000 miles east to west. So if you want to get past this going east, you'd have to go to China. You have to go 2,000 miles. So where did these wise men come from? Well, they came from Parthia. It's the only place. Now, down here, here is the city of Jerusalem. They came in Jerusalem. They came from the east, and they came into Jerusalem right here. And here is Babylon, which is part of the Parthian Empire at that time. They probably came from Babylon, and they came over here. They came here east. Pretty good trek. Now, I want to point something else out. Right along here, along this line right here, is the Euphrates River. Babylon is on the Euphrates River. A large portion of the border between the Roman Empire and the Parthian Empire was the Euphrates River. Just to give you a little bit of a reference, we just step back out here. If you have this curtain here, you see over here is Rome, Roman Empire. Over there is the Parthian Empire. Here is the dividing line right here. This is the Euphrates River. That gives you an idea. They're equal in size. In fact, the Parthian Empire might have been a little larger as far as geographical area. So, it was a very large empire. Again, Parthias shared a common border to a large extent with the Roman Empire, the Euphrates River.

It's called the Roman Empire, then was bordered on the east by the Euphrates River to a large extent. In the center of the Parthian Empire was due east of Jerusalem, as we showed here. Due east. There's Jerusalem, there's Babylon. It's due east. So, these wise emphases are only one place they could have come from, and that is from Parthias, from the Parthian Empire.

So, it was a huge empire, Parthias was. In fact, if you look at it, it's going to compare it. Parthian Empire was about two-thirds the size of the continental United States. It's about how large it was, 2,000 years ago. Again, it took in the city of Babylon, which was located on the Euphrates River, in which today, ancient Babylon today is in Iraq. But it was right in the center of the Parthian Empire 2,000 years ago. Parthian Empire also took in what today are portions of the territories of Eastern Turkey today, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, a portion of India, in addition to some southern portions of the former Soviet Union. This was a huge empire, geographically speaking. And it was a power that rivaled Rome, and before whom, Rome trembled. So these first two verses of Matthew 2 tell us a great deal. One thing they don't tell us, they don't tell us why. Why would wise men from the east, wise men from Parthia, why would they call wise men? OK, it doesn't tell us that. And why would they want to worship? He would have been born king of the Jews. Well, we'll look into that next time. For now, then, let's look at this. Why did Rome tremble at the thought of these Parthians entering Jerusalem? They're thick and possibly a Parthian invasion here, when they saw the small armies bringing these wise men into Jerusalem. They thought maybe they were being invaded. Why would they tremble at that thought? What happened? Now, let's go back about 50 years before the birth of Christ. What happened in 53 BC? In 53 BC, a Roman general by the name of Prassus, C-R-A-S-S-U-S, set out to conquer Parthia. And Roman conquered a lot already, by that time. They were trying to conquer the world. They're very imperialistic. And this Roman general decided he was going to go east. Well, I'll be real to make my name great in history if I can conquer Parthia. That'll double the size of our territory. So he set out in 53 BC to do that. And again, Euphrates River, as I stipulated, was the border. So to invade Parthia, the first thing he had to do was to build a bridge over the Euphrates River for his army to cross over into Parthia. What happened, as his troops were passing over that bridge to enter into Parthia, is from Rollins' ancient history, Volume 2, page 278. Crassus had seven legions of foot soldiers. This is the Roman general, Crassus. Nearly 4,000 horse soldiers and his many light armored soldiers and archers, which amounted in all to more than 40,000 men. So Crassus took an army of 40,000 across this bridge he built to go over the Euphrates River to invade Parthia. 40,000. Pretty good sized army. And then goes on, Rollins says, that is to say, one of the finest armies that Romans ever set on foot. When his troops were passing the bridge, he had laid over the Euphrates River. Guess what happened? I mean, you have to think about this. Why did this happen? It said, a dreadful storm of thunder and lightning drove in the face of the soldiers, as to prevent them from going on. At the same time, a black cloud out of which burst an impetuous wind, attended with thunderclaps and lightning, fell upon the bridge and broke down part of it. The Roman troops were seized with fear.

You know, I have to wonder, at this particular time was God on the side of the Parthians. However, Crassus and his army, they regrouped, they repaired the bridge and they went on anyway.

Was this impetuous storm a warning from God to the Romans? I don't know. Could have been. But when Crassus and the Roman army finally engaged the Parthians, here is what happened, as recorded in Rollins' ancient history, and in the book, A History of Iran.

Rollins' ancient history, Parthia, vol. 2, p. 278-280. The Roman soldiers had imagined that the Parthians would never dare to come to those with them. They now saw, contrary to their expectations, this is in 53 BC, by the way, that they were to undergo great battles and great dangers. After some days in the enemy's country, in Parthia, where it was difficult to have any intelligence, the scouts, the Roman scouts, came in full speed to inform the Roman general, Crassus, that a very numerous army of the Parthians was advancing with great order and boldness to attack him immediately. The news through the whole camp had been due 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, arrows from the Parthian army. Their order and dismay now began when they experienced the rapidity and force of those arrows against which no armor was proof, and which penetrated alike wherever they hit. The Parthians did dreadful executions and made deep wounds because they do 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 they died by 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 out by force the bearded arrows. The arrows were bearded, so you pulled them out, you had to pull against those beards that ripped your skin apart. Tear out by force the bearded points of 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 craftsman exhorted them to charge, they showed him their hands nailed to their bucklers, and their feet riveted to the ground. So it was impossible for them to either defend themselves or to flee.

The Parthians were extremely skilled with the bow and arrow. They could ride on their horses and shoot with tremendous action with very strong bows and arrows. They were experts. Here's how Roland ends his affection on this particular battle. Roland's Ancient History of Parthia, Volume 2, about page 2, 81. This was a terrible night for the Romans. They had no thought of either interning their dead or addressing their wounds, of whom the greatest part died in the most horrible torments. Every man was solely intent upon his own particular distress, for they all saw plainly they could not escape. Crassus was at the same time he was killed. This Roman general of Crassus was at the same time killed by Aparthen. This is his battle in 53 BC, and it says here. Here's what Roland says. The loss of this battle was the most terrible blow the Romans had received. They had 20,000 men killed, and 10,000 more taken prisoners. The rest made their escape by different means. Now, remember, the Crassus and his Roman honors started out with 40,000 men. In this one battle in 53 BC, they lost 75% of that portion of their army. 20,000 killed and 10,000 taken prisoner. Now, in the book, A History of Iran, it confirms what Rollins wrote and adds a few more details. This is from pages 36 and 37 of A History of Iran, written by Michael Axworthy. In 53 BC, Marcus Crassus, a fabulously rich Roman politician who had destroyed the slave revolt of Spartacus, became the new governor of Roman Syria. Hoping to make conquest to the east, Crassus marched an army of some 40,000 men east to Khare, C-A-R-R-H-A-E. At Khare, Crassus' army was met in the open plain by a smaller but fast-moving force of about 10,000 horsemen, including large numbers of horse archers. So here, he's telling us, there were 10,000 Parthians versus 40,000 Romans. Michael Foxworthy then goes on to say this. The Parthians confronted Crassus with a kind of fighting the Romans had not previously encountered, and against which they had no answer. Hour after hour, the arrows rained down on the Romans, and despite the Romans' heavy armor, the powerful Parthian war blows frequently zinged an arrow past the edge of a shield, found a gap at the neck between the body armor and helmet, a wounded soldier's unprotected hands or feet. The full strength of the Parthian horse archers turned on the Roman detachment. More and more of them were hit by the arrows. Crassus' son pulled his men back to a small hill where they were surrounded, and then eventually killed. Finally, Crassus attempted to negotiate with the Parthian general, Seren, S-U-R-E-N. only to be killed in a scuffle. The survivors of the Roman army withdrew and disordered back into Roman Syria. Meanwhile, as many as 10,000 Roman prisoners were marched off by the Parthians to the remote northeast of the empire.

Thus, in a separately written history by Michael Foxworthy in his book, A History of Iran, first published more recently in 2008, he confirms what was written by Rollins well over 150 years ago.

Rollins then makes this particular comment, Rollins, Volume 2, page 284, Parthia. At this time, Roman was becoming respected and dreaded by all nations. She was becoming mistress of the most important kingdoms of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Yet in the most exalted height of her glory, she saw her glory suddenly fall to the ground, and her attack upon a people formed out of the assemblage of an Eastern empire, whose valor she despised, Rome despised. So complete a victory was shown to those haughty conquerors of the world by a rival empire and a remote people to the east, who were capable of setting bound to Rome's ambitious projects and of making them tremble for their own safety. It showed the Romans might be overturned in pitched battle and be restrained. The check received by Crassus from the Parthians was a blot on the Roman Empire, which is probably why Parthia has all but then has sponged from most of the history books. Because we've all been taught about the greatness of Rome, but how many of us have been taught about the history of the Parthian Empire? About this, either one empire of Rome could never conquer or subdue. Maybe another reason we have not been taught the history of the Parthian Empire is because to a very large degree, who were they? To a very large degree, they were Jews and Israelites. They were descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were descendants of the house of Judah and the house of Israel. Maybe that's why history doesn't want to bring out what a great empire was.

After the Battle of Carre, 53 BC, there was one additional Roman general who set out to conquer Parthia, one that we're all very familiar with. That general was Mark Anthony. Here's what Michael Axworth recorded in his book, A History of Iran, pages 38 and 39.

The next Roman to test the Parthians in a major way was Mark Anthony. In 36 BC, he took an army more than double the size of that of Crassus, and he took them into the same area in Upper Pennsylvania. How many did Crassus take? He took an army of 40,000. Here, Michael Axworth, he says that Mark Anthony doubled that army. He took 80,000 Roman troops to invade Parthia. He wanted to make a name for himself. He wanted to become the next emperor of Rome, actually.

Continuing, 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. Then Rollins concludes the entire episode of Rome's encounters with the Parthians by saying this. In a 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. And then Michael Axworth, he adds this on page 39 of A History of Iran. After Augustus eventually achieved supremacy in the Roman Empire, he followed a policy of diplomacy with the Parthians, creating a period of peace. I find that fascinating. Why would that be important? Octavian became Augustus Caesar in about 26 or so BC. After the cement fighting, to see who was going to be the emperor of Rome, he made a peace treaty with the Parthians. And that peace treaty lasted about 100 years. Why is that important? That period of peace lasted about 100 years, with probably a large portion of the first century AD. What did that do? It assured there would be no wars with Parthia at the time Christ was born, or during the beginning stages of the early New Testament Church, when the apostles would have to travel to all parts of the Roman Empire and Parthia as well to take the gospel to the world at that time. And there had been war with Parthia for decades. If there had been war between Parthia and Rome, how could the disciples of Christ and the apostles take the gospel to the world around them, which consisted primarily of the Roman Empire and the Parthian Empire? That was the major portion of the world. Probably went beyond that as well, I'm sure, but that was the major part. How could they travel to all those different places, taking the gospel to all those cities and places in those areas, if there was war going on? They couldn't. So this peace treaty assured that the gospel could go forward to the world after the death of Jesus Christ.

I mean, I find that fascinating, like God's hand is in this, to ensure His gospel is going to be preached to the world as a witness at that particular time.

About six years after Mark Anthony's defeat by the Parthians, he was defeated by Octavian, who then became Caesar Augustus, and Mark Anthony died on August 1st of 30 BC in Alexandria, Egypt, along with his lover Cleopatra, you know the story of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra. He died together on August 1st, 30 BC, probably by taking poison, they probably committed suicide together. Taking poison, that's what most history probably tends to record. Now, something else is interesting there with the death of Cleopatra, and that ties into Bible history as well, in 30 BC, was Cleopatra. She was the last king, queen in this case, of the South. She was the Ptolemy. You had the Selukids and the Ptolemies, the kings of the North, the kings of the South, and Daniel XI. Cleopatra was the last king or queen in her case of the South. That ended the reign of the Ptolemies, bringing that part of history, the history of the kings of the South, to an end. If you read Daniel XI, you read all that. So this then gives us some background to understanding the history behind Matthew 2, verses 1-3, to understanding who the wise men from the East were, at least generally speaking. And why Herod and all of Jerusalem was troubled at their arrival in Jerusalem, to see and bring their treasure, their wealth, to he was born king of the Jews. But again, there's a lot more to the story. Who were these wise men specifically? Who were these specifically? Why were they coming from Procteria to Jerusalem to bestow wealth on the one that they saw, to film this prophecies of Daniel, the 70 weeks prophecy, I should say, in Daniel 9? So there's much more to the story. See, why did this contingent from Parthia want to bestow a great deal of wealth or treasure on who was born king of the Jews?

How did these Jews and Israels, the king there, from Parthia, how did they end up in Parthia?

What kind of a structured government did Parthia have?

How did they select their king?

Who was their king? He had to be from a certain line. Why? What line did he have to come from? Who was the king and what title did he go by? They're king. The king of Parthia went by a certain title, title we're all familiar with. Why did he go by that time? Does it tie in to why they came to Jerusalem to worship Heud in born king of the Jews? And why were they so interested in that? See, what was their ultimate goal? Well, we'll try to cover most of that next time in the Wise Memphonies Part 2, which here in front will be on January 20th. Before I close, I would like to mention one more thing. As we also see next time, some Parthians became Christians. Some Parthians, on the day of Pentecost 31, some of them were there, and they received God's Holy Spirit, they became part of the Christian church, early in the Testament church. But there's a dark side to this that's going on at the same time, which I want to bring out and end with. At the same time, all this was happening, a new mystery religion began spreading in the Roman Empire.

And here's what the history of Iran says on page 11 regarding Mithraism. It was called Mithraism. M-I-T-H-R-A-I-S-M. And here's what Michael Axworth says in the history of Iran. He says, it was a kind of secret society, little like the Freemasons. Its tenets included mystery ceremonies, initiation rites, and the hierarchy of grades of membership. The period of the cult's early population and spread was during the first century A.D. It is thought to have had an important influence on the early New Testament church as the Christian bishops made converts and tried to make the new religion as acceptable as possible to former pagans. It's called synchronism. They tried to synchronize the two together so they could be gave converts into their former Christianity, so to speak. Were they successful in doing that? Well, Michael Axworth, on page 41 of the history of Iran, then says this. Mithras' followers believed that he was born on December 25th of a virgin with shepherds as his first worshippers. And they synchronized that, then, as part of their former Christianity in the first century A.D. So I'll end there and pick up the story next time in part two of The Wise Men from the East.