Khazaria.

The Khazar Empire (ca. 650–ca. 965/68), one of the largest states of medieval Eurasia, dominated a region from the Ukrainian steppes to lands approaching the Ural River and from the Middle Volga region to the North Caucasus and Crimea. Important segments of its population converted to Judaism in the mid-to-late eighth century. Khazaria’s ruling core of Turkic tribes stemmed from the Türk Qaghanate (qaghan “emperor”) centered in Mongolia and ruling a domain stretching from Manchuria to the Black Sea. The Türk Empire divided into eastern (552–630, 682–742) and western (552–659, ca. 690–ca. 766) halves for administrative purposes. The Khazar Qaghanate, apparently led by a breakaway branch of the Türk ruling clan, the Ashina, seceded from the fragmenting Western Türk realm around 630–650.

 There are anachronistic references to the Khazars before 630 in Arabic, Armenian, Georgian, and other sources, but it is only from about 650 that we can speak with confidence of the Khazars as a clearly defined polity. Khazaria brought under its rule an ethnically diverse population of Turkic, Iranian, Finno-Ugrian, Slavic, and North Caucasian peoples engaged in variety of economic pursuits: pastoral nomadism, agriculture, viticulture, and the hunting-gathering activities typical of the northern forests. It played a major role in international trade as an intermediary between these forests and the Byzantine and Islamic Empires. Ibn Khurdādhbih (ninth-century author of an important geographical survey) mentions several transcontinental routes of the “Rādhānīyah,” a Jewish merchant company (later supplanted by the Scandinavian-Eastern Slavic Rus’) that traversed Khazaria and played a key role in the Euro-Asian trade. Aside from these brief notices on their routes and goods, little is known about the “Radanites” or their religious and cultural influence (if any) in Khazaria.

 The Khazars took 10 percent of the value of the goods that passed through their lands and presumably provided protection for the merchant caravans in return. The capital, located in the Volga estuary, Atil (the Turkic name for the Volga), was a cosmopolitan trading center with substantial Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and pagan communities. With the exception of the ruler’s palace and some government buildings, the capital’s inhabitants lived in nomad tents. The site of Atil remains undiscovered. A previous urban center (up to the early eighth century) had been either Samandar (subsequently noted as ruled by a Judaized Khazar of the royal house or by a Muslim of Arab origin) or Balanjar (not far from modern Derbent in Dagestan). The Khazars, as was the case with many of the early Turkic states, were noted for their religious tolerance, permitting each religious community to govern its internal affairs according to its own traditions.

 Khazar ethnic origins are much debated. It is unclear if they derived from a Turkic tribe or tribal union called Khazar, stemming from earlier Turkic nomadic peoples, or whether this ethnonym was originally a political term denoting a group that had broken away from the Western Türk state. The polyglot character of the Khazar realm further complicates the issue. Some contemporary Muslim geographers report that the Khazar language was similar to Bulghar (a form of Turkic that differs from Common Turkic and survives today only in Chuvash). Others (sometimes the same authors) say that Khazar was unlike any other tongue. The surviving fragments of the Khazar language, mainly titles, personal names, and place names that were transmitted in a wide range of Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, Greek, Armenian, and Georgian sources, among others, are largely Turkic but do not provide enough evidence to tell us which form of Turkic the people spoke.

 From about 650 to the late 670s, the Khazars subjugated or drove off the Bulghar tribes in the Black Sea steppes. At the same time, they became involved in a protracted war with the Muslim Caliphate for control of Caucasia. In 737, Marwān, the Umayyad general (and later the last Umayyad caliph, r. 744–750), staged a surprise raid and captured the Khazar Qaghan, who was obliged to convert to Islam. This conversion was short-lived, however, as the Muslims were unable to maintain a military presence on the lower Volga. The wars with the Caliphate (which waned in the latter half of the eighth century) and an entente with Byzantium (reinforced by marital ties) against their common foe, the Muslims, brought the religious question to the fore. The Khazar ruling elite, opting, in all likelihood, for a recognized monotheistic religion that would not entail subordination to the Arabian caliph or Byzantine emperor, converted to Judaism (of the Rabbinite, not Karaite form).

 The dating of the conversion is not firmly established. Very likely this is because it was a complex process, beginning with the upper strata of Khazar society (the qaghan and his entourage) and later spreading to other but not all segments. This is typical of the process of conversion across Eurasia. Yehudah Halevi (1075–1141), in his Kuzari, written in distant Spain centuries after the fall of Khazaria but claiming information that came from the Khazars, placed the conversion around 740. This may have marked the beginning of the process. Al-Mas‘ūdī, a well-informed Muslim historian living in the mid-tenth century, says that the Khazar ruler converted during the reign of Caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd (r. 786–809), attracting Jews to Khazaria from Muslim lands and Byzantium who joined an already existing Jewish community in Khazaria (especially in Crimea). Supporting evidence for this date can be found in imitation Arab coins with the notation arḳ al-khazar (Land of the Khazars) that the Khazars periodically minted. One grouping of coins from AH 223/838 CE, replaced the customary Islamic formula announcing the prophethood of Muḥammad with Mūsā rasūl Allāh, “Moses is the Messenger of God.”

 Clearly, by this time Judaism had begun to take on the trappings of a state religion or at the least was part of the profile that the Khazars presented to the world. Only members of the ruling clan who professed Judaism could become Qaghans. The expansion of Judaization is reflected in Muslim sources. While some Muslim sources note that Judaism was largely limited to the ruling elite, Ibn Fadḳlān, who was in the Khazar vassal state of Volga Bulgharia in 921–922, says that “the Khazars and their king are all Jews.” Ibn al-Faqīh, writing ca. 930, reports “all of the Khazars are Jews, but they have been Judaized recently.” The Khazar Hebrew correspondence of the mid-tenth century (an exchange of letters between the Khazar ruler, Joseph, and the Jewish courtier of the Spanish Umayyads, Ḥasdai ibn Shaprūṭ and the “Letter of an Unknown Khazar Jew,” probably from the same era but preserved only in a twelfth-century copy from the Cairo Geniza) presents the conversion as an internal process, a return to Judaism, thereby placing it in a context that would be more familiar to Jewish audiences, but traces the origins of the Khazars to Togarmah, the biblical progenitor of the Turkic peoples. A letter from (or to?) Khazar Jews in Kiev (Qiyoba), also probably from the tenth century (and preserved in the Cairo Geniza), shows the presence of Khazar and other Jews there, confirmed by later Rus’ sources.

 The bulk of the nomads under Khazar rule remained shamanists and worshipers of the Inner Asian celestial deity, Tengri. The ruler of Khaydaq, a city in Dagestan that was in the Khazar sphere of influence, is said to have worshiped on successive days with his Muslim, Jewish, and Christian subjects, clear evidence of the religious complexity of the region.

 A unique feature of tenth-century Khazaria was the institution of sacral kingship in which the qaghan, a now sacralized figure, reigned but did not rule. The actual governance of the realm was left to the “king” who had the title of qaghan-beg. Dual kingship was well known in the Turkic world. The sacralization of the Khazar qaghan, however, was different. A secluded, venerated symbol for the well-being of the state, all prostrated themselves before him when he made his rare public appearances. The few high officers who were admitted to his presence underwent purification ceremonies. This may have derived from Iranian notions of kingship introduced into court culture by the Ors guard (from Iranian Khwārazm) that surrounded the qaghan, whose chief minister came from them. It had nothing to do with the Judaism of the ruling elite with which these practices coexisted. The qaghan’s investiture was identical to that of the Türk qaghans, including a rite of ceremonial strangulation, at the conclusion of which the new qaghan, about to lose consciousness, predicted the length of his reign.

 In 965 and apparently again in 968–969, Khazaria, already in decline, was attacked by the Rus’ and Oghuz (a neighboring Turkic tribal union). According to Muslim accounts, the qaghan agreed to convert to Islam in return for aid from Khwārazm. Thereafter, the Khazars faded as a power of any consequence. There are scattered references to them in Rus’ and other sources. Crimea, which they once dominated, continued to be called Gazaria in Latin sources. Other Jewish communities that developed in the region undoubtedly absorbed Khazar Jews and Judaized Khazars. Other Khazars melded into incoming Turkic nomadic peoples. The role of the Khazars in the shaping of East European Ashkenazic Jewry is periodically the subject of speculation. Judaized Khazars may have been one of the components of what became the largest Jewish community in the modern era, but it is very unlikely that they were a determinative element… (Author, Peter B. Golden).

 http://yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Khazaria

John Piper is Wrong About Hell (But I Still Thank God for Him!).

I thank God for John Piper and the work God has done and continues to do through him. I have been one of many to benefit from Piper’s books, sermons, and articles. I was blessed with the opportunity to serve the Lord in the world’s largest Muslim nation for fourteen years. During those years my co-workers and I were often encouraged and strengthened to continue in a very difficult ministry by things Piper wrote or said. And just last night, not knowing that I would be writing this article this morning, I used an article of Piper as part of a Bible study at the church where I serve. And if I had known that I would be writing this article this morning, I still would not have hesitated to use Piper’s article last night.

 Having said all that, I believe that Piper is simply wrong about the nature of hell and the fate of the unrighteous. A good, godly man who God uses mightily can occasionally be just plain wrong. An excerpt from a message he gave on the topic of Hell was just posted this morning at the Desiring God website. I won’t be quoting every word of Piper’s article, so I encourage you to read it for yourself, it’s not long.

 Why I’m Convinced that John Piper’s Message is Wrong.

 Here I’ll go point by point through the transcript of the excerpt from Piper’s message. Piper is defending a view which is often called Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT). I believe in a view called Conditional Immortality (CI) or Annihilationism. As an evangelical conditionalist, I’m convinced that the Bible teaches that the unrighteous will be raised to face judgment, experience a finite amount of conscious suffering, and then perish (John 3:16), be destroyed in body and soul (Matthew 10:28), and burned to ashes (2 Peter 2:6).

 1. Piper Quotes Mark 9:43–48 as Support for ECT.

 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:43–48).

 When Jesus spoke these words he included quotes from the last verse of Isaiah: “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24).

 Notice that the fire that is not quenched and worms that do not die are not torturing living people. They are being used to consume “dead bodies” after judgment. That makes a lot of sense because all over the world and all throughout history the vast majority of dead bodies have been disposed of either by worms turning them into dust or fire turning them into ashes. So the words Jesus speaks in Mark 9 actually support CI, not ECT.

2. Piper Quotes Mark 3:29 as Support for ECT.

 . . . but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin. (Mark 3:29).

 Annihilationists and traditionalists both agree that there is sin that will never be forgiven. Piper is probably using this verse to refute Universalism. I agree that this verse refutes Universalism. It says nothing one way or the other about whether those not forgiven will be tormented forever or be permanently destroyed in both body and soul (Matthew 10:28) forever.

 3. Piper Quotes Matthew 25:41, 46 as Support for ECT.

 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (Matt 25:41, 46).

 Piper is correct in insisting that eternal punishment will last as long as eternal life. Again, this is a strong argument against Universalism. However, it is not a strong argument against CI. As the punishment conditionalists believe awaits the lost, eternal death is a form of eternal punishment. Once people are completely destroyed, they will never, for all eternity, return to life and enjoy the pleasures of knowing God and being with Him.

 Many people wrongly think that “eternal punishment” must refer to a process of punishing which continues forever. That is simply not true. Consider the use of the same word “eternal” in Hebrews: “Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” (Heb 6:1–2). “Eternal judgment” does not refer to a process of judging which goes on forever. It refers to a judgment consisting of the eternal, permanent consequences of a judging process finite in duration. Similarly, this same author writes, “[Christ] entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12). “Eternal redemption” does not refer to a process of redeeming which goes on forever. It refers to a redemption consisting of the eternal, permanent consequences of a redeeming process finite in duration—one completed “once for all.” In the same way, “eternal punishment” does not refer to a process of punishing which goes on forever. It refers to a punishment consisting of the eternal, permanent consequences of a punishing process finite in duration.

 As far as the phrase “eternal fire” goes, it should be noted that the fire being eternal does not mean that what is cast into it must remain alive and conscious. God’s glory is presented in terms of intense, glowing, burning, fiery light throughout the Bible. “Eternal fire” may refer to this manifestation of His glory. This fire of God will be glorious to behold when we are made perfect. But the same fire destroys all who are impure. Notice that the same phrase “eternal fire” is used in Jude 7 to refer to God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet fire is not currently burning there. Peter Grice provided this excellent explanation: “Fire from heaven—the consuming fire of God—may be considered eternal at its source, without this meaning that any manifestation or emanation of it must continue to burn forever.”⁵ Perhaps this is why Jesus had earlier set up “eternal fire” as a parallel to Gehenna (Matt 18:8–9), the “Valley of the Son of Hinnom” which the Old Testament promised would become “the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury [there], because there is no room elsewhere. And the dead bodies of this people will be food for the birds of the air, and for the beasts of the earth, and none will frighten them away” (Jer 7:32–33).

 4. Piper Quotes from 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9 as Support for ECT.

. . . and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might . . . (2 Thess 1:7–9).

 It has always seemed strange to me that defenders of ECT have thought that the phrase “eternal destruction” supports their view. “Destruction” does not mean “torment” in English, nor do the Greek words translated “destruction/destroy” mean “torment”.

 For excellent, detailed discussions of this passage, see the article by Peter Grice quoted from above, together with part 2 of the article. See also Reese Watt’s fine article on the text.

 Piper Quotes from Revelation to Support ECT.

 The only book of the Bible which actually mentions eternal torment is the book of Revelation. This is a book full of visions which use a lot of symbolism. Piper fails to note that John gives us the interpretation of the lake of fire symbol: “Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire” (Rev 20:14; cf. 21:8).

 The lake of fire is a symbol for dying a second time. John tells us so. There is a lot of evidence which supports the view that the lake of fire and the “second death” refer to the annihilation of the unrighteous, not their eternal torment. I have written a series of blog posts on this specific topic.

 What Piper Leaves Out.

 In the excerpt provided by Desiring God, Piper does not address the many Bible passages which give strong support to CI. Here are just a few:

 Psalm 37: In this Psalm, David says the wicked will wither and die away like grass (v. 2), be destroyed (v. 9), “be no more” (v. 10) so that even if you go looking for them you cannot find them, will perish (v. 20), will go up in smoke like grass consumed in a fire (v. 20), will be “completely destroyed” (v. 28), will pass away and be no more (v. 36), and will have no future (v. 38). That sure sounds like annihilation!

 Matthew 10:28: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

 John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

 Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

 2 Peter 2:6: “ . . . if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;”

 How Piper Helped Me Become a Conditionalist.

 After receiving a call from the Lord to go overseas and share His Good News among unreached people groups, I read Piper’s excellent book, Let the Nations Be Glad.⁹ I highly recommend the book, despite a section where Piper defends ECT. Ironically, it was while reading this section of Piper’s book that I began to think that CI might be correct. Piper kindly includes some comments from John Stott in footnote #15 on page 120. God has blessed John Piper with a brilliant mind and a gift to passionately and rationally explain God’s truth. Yet, as I read this section, Piper’s arguments supporting ECT felt so weak and did not seem to have biblical support. Stott’s short comments in the footnote made sense to me. I began to think that CI might be true. It was quite a few year later, however, until I studied this topic in more depth and become convinced of CI and began to teach it. I hope some of you reading this will likewise be motivated to study this topic in more depth. I certainly don’t expect this one short post to convince you.

 May God continue to bless the ministry of John Piper. This issue (ECT vs. CI) should never divide Christians. We agree that a terrible fate awaits the unrighteous and that seeing them saved from this fate is one of the motivations we have to take risks and make sacrifices to share God’s Good News and spread His love in Jesus’ Name all over the world… (By Mark Corbett·- Posted on July 21, 2017).

 http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2017/07/john-piper-is-wrong-about-hell-but-i-still-thank-god-for-him/ 

Emmanuel Bonaparte: Macron Declares He Will Govern Like a Roman God.

POOL/AFP Charles Platiau / (by Jack Montgomery, 2017).

 French president Emmanuel Macron has declared he will govern France like Jupiter, the Roman king of the gods, shortly after officials told the media his thought process was “too complex” for journalists to understand.

 Summoning over 900 politicians from both houses of the French parliament to a rare Congress at the palace of Louis XIV – the ‘Sun King’ – in Versailles, he threatened to overrule lawmakers with a referendum if they try to frustrate the “reforms” he wishes to impose on the legislature. Such assemblies are usually reserved for times of national crisis.

 Reuters reports him as saying he desires to reign as a “Jupiterian” president – “a remote, dignified figure, like the Roman god of gods, who weighs his rare pronouncements carefully”.

 This bizarre statement of intent comes just days after Macron scrapped the president’s traditional Bastille Day press conference, with an Elysée Palace official claiming the 39-year-old’s thoughts are “too complex” for journalists.

 Macron’s “complex thought process lends itself badly to the game of question-and-answer with journalists”, the spokesman explained – prompting much mockery in the French press.

 It has been speculated that Macron is keen to cultivate an aloof, almost imperial aura after being derided as a placeman for the unpopular socialist François Hollande, in whose government he served as economy minister, or as a poodle for Angela Merkel, the German chancellor widely regarded as the European Union’s driving force.

 “You are the heir of François Hollande,” scoffed nationalist rival Marine Le Pen during their head-to-head election debate. “We now call you Baby Hollande; Hollande Junior!”

 She added that, whatever the outcome of the election, “France will be led by a woman: either me or Mrs. Merkel.”

 Much of the commentary on Macron’s alleged natural submissiveness hints at his relationship with his wife – twenty-five years his senior – with Italy’s larger-than-life former president Silvio Berlusconi teasing that he is “a nice lad with a good-looking mum”.

 Efforts by the EU loyalist to strengthen his public standing by picking fights with the governments of Central Europe, who have been resolutely defiant in the face of attempts by Brussels to impose compulsory migrant quotas on them, have been less than successful.

 Hungarian premier Viktor Orbán gently dismissed him as “a new boy” who had yet to find his feet.

 “Macron’s entrance wasn’t too encouraging, as he thought the best way to show friendship was to immediately kick Central European countries. This isn’t how we do things around here, but he’ll soon get to know his way around,” he added.

 Posing as the EU’s champion against President Donald Trump has also backfired, with a pointed, public snub of the U.S. leader in favour of Angela Merkel and other Europeans at a NATO summit ending in embarrassment when the 70-year-old manhandled him with a powerful handshake.

 Macron was clearly rattled by the exchange, granting a brief interview with journalists in order to emphasise that another handshake with President Trump – in which the Frenchman clung on for dear life – was a “moment of truth” in which he supposedly demonstrated that he “would not make small concessions, not even symbolic ones”.

 http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/04/macron-announces-govern-like-jupiter-roman-king-gods/