Who was Darius the Mede?

Daniel 5:31 it mentions that Darius the Mede received the kingdom at age sixty-two. Some believe extrabiblical history supposedly never mentions Darius the Mede.  Not a whole lot is known about the Kingdom of the Medes. The name Darius is a title that means Lord and King.  Others have said Darius is actually a general by the name Gubaru who was with the Babylonians but left them to join the confederation of the Medes and Persians who defeated Belshazzar and his father Nabonidus when Babylon was conquered in 539 B.C.

It is important to determine who Darius is for our own knowledge and peace of mind. Also, it is important to be able to refute the critics who deny the historicity of the book of Daniel, and the actual existence of Daniel himself.

If one is totally captive to the truthfulness of the Word of God such as I am, then you have to believe that Darius the Mede was an actual historical figure just like Melchizedek was although he appears only once in Genesis 14:18, and is mentioned in the following verses: Psalm 110:4, and Hebrews 5:6, 10 6:20; 7:1,10,11,15,17. We cannot allow extrabiblical sources to validate the Bible.  We use scripture to determine if other sources are valid when dealing with Biblical matters and characters. The Word of God tells us that all scripture is theopneustos, that is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Meaning that Daniel recorded the Words of God, not his own. This makes the book of Daniel perfect in its presentation because it is not the word of man, but as 2 Peter 1:21 declares Daniel was carried along by the moving and power of the Holy Spirit. The book of Daniel is an original autograph with no propaganda. So what better person to validate who Darius was than an eyewitness? This is where Daniel comes in. When the Medes and Persians conquered Babylon in 539 B.C., the Bible tells us Darius the Mede received the kingdom when he was sixty-two years old (Dan 5:31).

We also read of the famous true story of Daniel being rescued from the lion’s den in chapter 6. Darius is the king at that time who lifts Daniel out of the den and has Daniel’s accusers thrown in.

Although there are several sources that have written about this time in history, the two main historians are Herodotus (484-425 BC.) and Xenophon (430-354 BC). Herodotus’ work is entitled Histories and Xenophon’s work is the Cyropaedia which means “The education of Cyrus”.

Some the main differences between the two Greek historians are these: Herodotus claims that Cyrus defeated his maternal Grandfather Astyages/Ahasuerus in battle in 550 B.C. Herodotus also claims that Astyages had no heir to receive his throne. As a result, Cyrus’ became the sole ruler of the Medo-Persian Empire. Xenophon tells a different story. He never records that Astyages and his Grandson Cyrus battled. Rather Astyages’ son was a man by the name of Cyaxeres II as the Greeks would call him. We know him by his throne name, Darius. This view is shared by the historian Josephus (37-100 AD) although he never mentions Darius by the name Cyaxares.  An ancient text called the Behistun of Darius Hystaspes (Darius I or Darius the Great, 522-486 BC)[1] also supports the existence of Darius the Mede.[2] According to Herodotus Astyages did not have a son, but a daughter named Mandane who married Cyrus’s father Cambyses I. In Xenophon’s account, Cyaxares II/Darius the Mede is Cyrus’ maternal uncle. When Darius dies in 537 B.C., Cyrus becomes the ruler of both the Medes and Persians with the Persians becoming more powerful as evidenced by the prophecy/vision Daniel receives of the Ram in Daniel 8:3b.

From what I have researched, Herodotus has received praise from it seems many and much criticism from men like Diordorus who accused Herodotus of telling false stories. Strabo (c. 64 BC-AD 21) said Herodotus provided unreliable historical accounts regarding the Medes and Persians. Another harsh critic was a man named Plutarch (c. AD 50-120). He outright said Herodotus was a liar.  A man named Cicero apparently had mixed feelings regarding Herodotus. He called Herodotus “the father of history” which is definitely an overreach.  In the same sentence, he said that Herodotus was a man who’s works “contain numerous fabulous tales”. What a duplicitous statement! The running theme with Herodotus is that he could spin a story. It appears he perhaps wanted to romance the life of Cyrus rather than deliver the cold hard facts.  Herodotus said that out of the four stories regarding the accession and life of Cyrus, he picked the one that is most suitable to him – perhaps the one most dramatic. From the critics, it appears that Herodotus was more interested in presenting drama than historical fact. In reading Xenophon and briefly reviewing his life, I believe responsible researchers would lean toward him. Whether Xenophon knew or cared, his account supports the Biblical account of Daniel’s Darius the Mede. He personally traveled with the Persians and in particular with Cyrus the Younger’s entourage (Cyrus III) who was the Son of Darius II (423-404) who was the Son of Artaxerxes Longimanus or Artaxerxes I (465-424 BC).

It appears the biggest criticism Xenophon receives from modern critics is the person of Cyaxeres II/Darius the Mede. Postmodernists have pretty much abandoned the idea this person really existed. In doing so, they have discredited Daniel as a reliable historical eyewitness reporter guided by the Holy Spirit.  Even worse, they have discredited the Bible – a most serious charge.

One more major disagreement surrounds Cyrus’ death. Herodotus claims Cyrus dies in battle in 530 B.C. Xenophon declares he dies in peace at home. So, his death has been a matter of dispute for over 2500 years.  

Daniel also mentions Darius the Mede in 6:1,6,9, 25, 28; 9:1; 11:1. The name Darius is also mentioned in the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai and Zechariah, but he is a different king; Darius I who is also Darius the Great and Darius Hystaspes (522-486 BC).

---

[1] The years listed for the kings are the years of their reign.

[2] It is important for the reader to know that there were four kings named Darius in history: Darius the Mede (559-537 BC, Darius Hystaspes or Darius I (522-486 BC), Darius II (423-404 BC), Darius III (336-330 BC) who was defeated by Alexander the Great. Only the first two kings named Darius appear in the Bible

Speaking things into existence

There are many that believe we can create what we want with our words. Do human words have that kind of power?  The quick answer is no! Those that believe this lie are victims of the positive confession movement, name-it-and-claim-it which is prevalent in Word of Faith Churches. 

The idea is that if you positive confess something enough times and you believe in what you are confessing, then it will come to pass. Actually what this is, is new age mysticism, not faith. This is also called the Law of attraction. In this "law", like attracts like. For instance, if you are uttering negative words in the universe, that is what the universe will bring back to you. Also if you are speaking positive things, then you expect positive things from the universe. This has some similarities to karma that is practiced in the Hindu and Buddhist religions.

Those that believe humans can call things into existence by speaking words have not really taken the time to analyze the serious implications of their thought process. What one is saying without realizing it is that you're like God. Why do I say that? Because God is the only being that can create something out of nothing or what is called ex nihilo. God used the power of his words to create the universe and everything in it. In other words, he spoke it into existence. We do not have that power.

Preachers have misused Romans 4:17 as a proof text for this unbiblical practice. Let's read what it says, "As it is written, I have made you the father of many nations, before him whom he believed. even God, who quickens the dead and calls those things that be not as though they were (KJV)".

This text is used as a sort of magic incantation to confess financial prosperity, healing for one's body, success on the job, etc. The verse in context has nothing do with the name-it-and-claim-it heresy. The writer Paul is talking about the promise of God to Abraham to make him the father of many nations. At the time God made the promise, Abraham was old and so was Sarah his wife. They were past the age of bearing children. But God promised they would have Isaac and at the appointed time they did when Abraham was 100 years old (Gen 21:2-4). God is the one that calls things into existence that do not exist. That is God brought the promise he made to Abraham to manifestation through his faith in the Lord.  

Also, it is also important to bear in mind that when God initially made the promise to Abraham about making him a father of many nations, and when he had Isaac was 25 years. A testament to Abraham's great enduring faith in God (Gen 12:4; Gen 21:5).

Think about it for a moment, if we could create our own reality by the power of our words, we could heal the sick, raise the dead, get rid of crime, prevent all types of abuse, end corrupt politics, and cure world hunger. We could create our own utopia. And if all that were true, we would get rid of God also. 

The ancient people of the world already tried to make a name for themselves with the ancient city and tower of Babel in the land of Shinar. They attempted to build it so they could reach into the heavens. God seeing their evil pride confused their languages so they could not understand one another and the ungodly building project was halted by God as the people were dispersed throughout the earth (Gen 11:1-9).

I use that account to prove that just like those ancient people in Genesis 11 attempted to make a name for themselves and failed, those that believe they can create their own reality with their words will always fail. This positive confession phenomenon is nothing more than abra-cadabra, hocus-pocus!! It is not trusting in God at all. 

The Outward and Inward Call

These are doctrines that speak to the outward and inward call of God toward all of humanity. What I need to discuss are the differences between the two. 

The outward call of God is presented to all of humanity but can be resisted. When we talk about the call of God, we are talking about the gospel invitation and command for man to repent of his sins and believe in Christ. The scripture says. "He that has the Son has life. He that does not have the Son does not have life (i.e. eternal life), but the wrath of God abides on him (John 3:36)".  Many respond to the outward call of God and often become members of the visible Church only. I believe these type of people are described in Matthew 13:20-22, "The one to whom the seed (i.e. God's word) was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and at once receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself but is only temporary, and when persecution comes because of the word, immediately he stumbles and falls away".

That is clearly the attitude of a Church attendee, but not a genuine believer. Once again, they are a member of the visible Church but not the invisible Church.

What is the invisible Church?

The invisible Church are those who have been adopted into God's family through the effective preaching of the gospel. The reason I say invisible is that we do not know everyone that is really in the Church but God does. We see physical bodies, but God knows who are actually his because he can see regenerate hearts - we can't (2 Tim 2:19b). Those whom God has chosen in eternity past for salvation respond to the outward call positively which is the preaching of the gospel by men to repent and believe. The inward call is only performed by God and cannot be resisted. Why? The inward call is what regenerates - brings men to saving faith and baptizes them into the body of Christ. Both the outward an inward call is essential for a spiritual harvest to occur.  

The inward call comes about because of the outward call - the planting of the holy seed, the word of God. In other words, God never saves someone without them first hearing the gospel. If they are good ground and produce a harvest, it was God's doing not ours. Our job is to sow the seed and let 

God do the rest in the heart of the sinner. Remember what Paul said, one plants, one waters, but  GOD gives the increase (1 Cor 3:6). 

The outward call of God is an essential, demanding yet loving call for all to repent and believe. Most reject this call. Some superficially respond to this call and join the visible Church. But due to not having any root or depth in the word, they fall away once persecution comes on account of it. The outward call alone will never produce salvation but is the cause that leads to it.  However, those whom God has predestined in eternity past to be saved in time, they will respond positively to the general call due to being chosen by God to respond to the inward calling.

The general call is performed by believers preaching the gospel and is necessary. The inward call is secret and performed only by God - causing the chosen sinner to become born again so that he/she responds to outward gospel call and be saved.

Did the Father forsake his Son at the cross?

The quick answer to this question is yes! God the Father did forsake his Son at the cross and I will explain why.

Believe it or not, that was the pre-determined plan of God (Acts 2:23). Also, when Jesus cried out "My God My God why have you forsaken me?", he was fulfilling Psalm 22:1. It is crucial to remember that Jesus was being made an offering for sin by the Father God on purpose. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, "He who knew no sin was made sin so that we might become the righteousness of God in him (Christ)".  

Mankind's sins state was so hopeless that it required the advent of the perfect sinless Son of God to die ultimately by the hands of God the Father to deliver us from our sins which gave birth to our spiritual life (Eph 2:1; Col 2:13).

The Father punished his Son on the cross and it pleased him to do it (Isa 53:10). Why? Because God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to save the world (John 3:16-17). In order for man to receive everlasting life, Jesus had to die to satisfy the Father's justice and wrath against sin. And since Jesus was made sin by transference, he became the object of the Father's perfect and holy wrath. God who is holy cannot look favorably upon sin because it is evil, and the antithesis of his nature.

That is why Jesus cried out "My God My God, why have you forsaken me?" He was realizing the monumental weight of the burden his Father placed on him - mankind's sins. This was the only time there was a breach in the Father and Son's relationship - at the cross. God had to forsake and turn his back on his Son due to him bearing our sins (Isa 53:5; 1 Peter 2:24). It is also ultimately the reason why he was sent to the earth. 

The human mind can never fully grasp the enormity of this perfect expression of love for undeserving sinners. We must never forget the price it took to purchase our freedom from sin - the precious blood of Jesus Christ. His death was accepted by God so that my life would be secured in him when I repented and believed in his completed work. 

Is Christianity a religion?

If a non-religious person were to ask a Christian the above question most would say "no Christianity isn't a religion, its a relationship!" Is that a cliche' or a true statement? Many Christians look at the word religion as a bad word. Why? The reason being is that most "religious" people only look at religion as a system of do's and dont's. Their religious activity is emotionless, a mechanistic tradition passed down often from their parents and grandparents. 

Often times people are involved in religious activity without even understanding why they are doing it, and what it all means. And in that case, one needs to examine themselves and their religion. There are also numerous others that are very impassioned about their religion because they are convinced it helps them, and they believe they are hopefully appeasing the god or ideology they worship.

Then there are others that feel that what they are doing centers them - keeps their mind and body in harmony so they practice yoga as their spiritual discipline. Lastly, there are those who try to improve themselves by attending self-help seminars and read self-help books.

According to Webster's online dictionary, the word religion has several meanings and synonyms.

1. The service and worship of God or the supernatural

2. Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

3. A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs or practices

Synonyms: faith, devotion, piety

Your belief system shapes your worldview which ultimately governs your thoughts, your behavior, and your life. This applies to the monotheist (those who worship one God), the polytheist (those who worship many gods), the pantheist (those who believe God is part of his creation rather than separate from it), and the atheist (the one that believes there is no God). 

I wrote the aforementioned paragraph because it is a spiritual principle. Jesus said what we speak out of our mouths comes from our hearts (Matt 15:18). These are the things that we believe and speak. 

Herein lies the marked difference between Christianity and other religions: the Lord Jesus Christ! There is no other faith on the planet other than Biblical Christ-centered Christianity that can guarantee to save the sinner's soul when they believe in the completed vicarious atonement of Christ. Only in Christ can one have their sins forgiven forever and receive eternal life. From this point, the saved has an ongoing love affair with the triune God. So absolutely yes!! Christianity is an intimate relationship between the Redeemer and his redeemed - it is most personal (Rom 8:15b;Eph 1:5)! We are adopted sons and daughters in the family of God. As a result, we live lives of obedience to God and we serve our neighbors. In the broad sense, Christianity is a religion in relation to the other religions of the world. The difference is it is a pure and undefiled religion according to James 1:27. 

It is not taboo to say that Christianity is a religion. Why? Because it is based on the faith that saves the soul. The founder of our faith was God Almighty in the flesh - the Lord Jesus. Once again, our religion is birthed out of the love of God for his sheep to come and become a substitutionary sacrifice for mankind's sins. True religion rescues the sinner since we can never rescue ourselves from our sins. No other religion or cult (a perversion of the Christian faith - LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Emerging Church), founder died for sin. Also, no other religion provided eternal salvation as a free gift to man. All false religions are man-centered and require that the adherent perform meritorious works to earn their salvation or their afterlife whether that be soul sleep, nirvana, a paradise earth, or a Muhammadan-heaven with unbridled sex with virgins (Islam).

Preaching the Gospel in conjunction with Election and Reprobation

This article is a sequel to the previous one: The doctrine of Reprobation. For those who militate against Divine Election and Reprobation because in the human mind they appear to make God a mean ogre, I want to attempt to prove how wonderful both of these doctrines are, and how neither is a hindrance to the gospel, but rather how the gospel is enhanced by them. 

I want to start with the negative view of what many say how preaching the gospel in light of divine election is pointless.

Those who do not like divine election and predestination say that preaching the gospel is pointless because the elect are going to believe no matter what and the non-elect are not going to believe no matter what So why preach the gospel at all?! That type of reasoning is called Hyper-Calvinism.

This is the fatalistic approach to the matter: Since God has already determined all things that will ever happen, why do anything at all? God has already made up his mind and nothing can change that! We are just a bunch of wind up toys with no will of our own doing the commands of our master.

The reason we are to preach the gospel is we are commanded to by the Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 16:15). Just because God has predetermined what he will ever do, does not mean that God or we are fatalists. We just don't throw caution to the wind and let the chips fall where they may. We have to be determinists just like God is. God has decided to use the foolishness of preaching to bring the elect to saving faith in Christ (1 Cor 1:21). Yes, God does guarantee the elect will be saved, but he will not save anyone until they respond positively to the gospel message in repentance and faith. The gospel is the means to meet the desired end of the chosen sinner - salvation. God lovingly choosing the elect before the foundation of the world by no means hinders evangelism, but rather guarantees the success of it! Praise God for his wisdom!

Now we have to talk about how God is glorified in those who do not believe the gospel. This will be admittedly very tough. Just as the elect are presented with the gospel, the non-elect are as well. The reality is with the non-elect is many believe the gospel, but the difference is they do not believe unto salvation. There are many people who believe in Jesus, his death, burial and perhaps his resurrection, but they also believe in the worship of Mary in Catholicism, Allah in Islam, the "jesus" of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and reincarnation, karma, horoscopes, etc. The nonbeliever wants a religious buffet so they become polytheistic or they adopt the other extreme, they become an atheist. Both worldviews are damnable. 

The result for the non-elect is they ultimately do not believe the only way to salvation through Jesus Christ (John 14:6;Acts 4:12).  Did the Word of God have its desired effect on those who are reprobate not resulting in their repentance their belief and salvation? Is that what God wanted to happen to them? One has to believe in some sense God wants the unbeliever to repent (Eze 33:11). That was clearly God's desire, but I do not believe it was his eternal decree. For if it were, everyone that will ever live would be saved, and hell would not exist. We have to remember just as God desires and is glorified in his mercy and grace, he also must and will be glorified in his justice and wrath. Man hates the latter, but that does not matter to God. God does whatever he pleases (Psalm 115:3).

Isaiah 55:11 tell us this, "So shall my Word go from my mouth. It shall not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."

God is telling us that his Word always meets its desired end - it never fails.

The Word of God is a two-edged sword. For the elect, it will convict them of sin that will lead to their repentance, faith, and salvation. For the non-elect, the Word is successful also, albeit negatively. The Word will also convict, but because they refuse to believe and they love darkness, it will result in non-repentance, expose their unregenerate heart which will tragically bring about their eternal damnation and separation from God.

In the end, everyone gets what they want. God gets to save the chosen. The chosen are reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. The non-elect get to live the life of rebellion against God and man that their sinful nature desires.

Although the aforementioned is true, God is commanding all men to repent of their sins today and be reconciled to God in Jesus Christ. No one is preventing you from coming to God but you! Beg for God to have mercy on your soul, repent today of your sins, and trust Jesus Christ for the salvation of your soul! He is ready and willing to save right now. Escape the wrath of God so you can experience the grace of God in salvation.

What is the doctrine of Reprobation?

The doctrine of reprobation I believe is the absolute hardest doctrine in all of scripture. It is so painful that many scholars and theologians do not discuss it. It has been my experience that only those in the Reformed or Calvinistic camps discuss the matter.

So, what is the doctrine of reprobation and is it Biblical?

In order to understand this doctrine one has to place it in juxtaposition to the doctrine of sovereign election. The doctrine of election as I have explained several times before is defined is that God before time and creation decided to foreknow and chose some to be recipients of his saving grace in time when he determined. In other words, exactly when God wanted, he would save them through the preaching of the gospel message - guaranteeing their salvation when they believed (Eph 1:4).

The doctrine of reprobation is that God before time decides not to choose others before the foundation of the world - leaving them in their sins to be judged by God at the end of time and ultimately perish in hell.

Now one can understand why this teaching is the most offensive of all doctrines - it offends our sensibilities and it casts a shadow of apparent unfairness, unrighteous, and unloving views of our creator. It is our natural tendency to reject and ridicule things we do not understand, dislike or even hate them. And believe me, this doctrine is hated. That is why it is important that we examine it to see if it is Biblical or not.

The word reprobation comes from the word reprobate which means not standing the test and to be rejected in the original Greek. The Bible does talk about some having a reprobate mind in Romans 1:28. Titus 1:16 says some people are reprobate.

So in the doctrine of reprobation (assuming it is true), there are those whom God decides in eternity past to pass over. Now I realize to the human mind this has massive implications.

The billion dollar question is why would God do this?

Apparently, it must be God's will not to save everyone. This reasoning, of course, raises more questions than it answers I'm sure.

One of the main questions is, "If God decided in eternity past to pass by some sinners to ultimately perish in their sins why create them in the first place?" In other words what benefit does God get by creating those he never intended to save? I'll answer the question later in the article.

Here is another question I need to present to the reader: Since some people are non-elect can they still respond positively to the gospel and be saved? My question and answer to this question is if the non-elect can believe and be saved when they hear the gospel, then I would argue that their salvation was not a gift of grace by God, but rather a work of self-righteousness by the sinner. I will put it another way, man chooses God, so God chooses man once he believed. And yet another way to put it: the faith of man compelled God to choose him in time. Or the faith of man dictated election. This reasoning is unbiblical because it shows man being proactive in salvation and God reactive. Ephesians 1:4 tells us that we were chosen before (italics mine) the foundation of the world. No one is chosen after the foundation of the world.

So, back to the question of, "If God in eternity past decided to pass by some sinners, reserve them for judgment and wrath in time - that they ultimately perish in sin, then why create them in the first place?" My answer is even the wicked serve a purpose in this world. Proverbs 16:4 tells us, "God has created all things for himself even the wicked for the day of evil" As bizarre as it may sound, evil people serve God even in their rebellion and unbelief! No one is here by accident. Somehow God's sovereignty allows for the wicked to behave wickedly. God uses their evil to bring about good that will glorify himself. Does God desire that man rebels? No. That is why he punishes us when we sin. But, he allows it otherwise evil could never occur. God has given man the free will to choose good or evil. When man obeys God, all generally goes well with him. When he rebels, he should fear because God's wrath abides on him (John 3:36).

The archetypical person the Bible describes as one who God raised up to display his power so that his name could be made known throughout all the earth was Pharoah. This is what the Apostle Paul said in Romans 9:17-18, for the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole Earth". So then he (i.e. God) has mercy on whom he desires (emphasis added), and he hardens whom he desires.

What does this mean? Pharaoh was an evil man who God reserved for divine judgment. He was not chosen to be a recipient of God's grace. Seem unfair? No, it is not. Pharaoh was a sinner who hated the true God and enslaved his people the Hebrews. God simply gave the man what he deserved, divine justice for his sins. God decided before time began not to elect Pharoah, but rather reserve him for judgment. In other words, the Lord hardened Pharoah.

Reprobation is God's just retribution on unredeemed sinners. Had God chose to do so, he could have elected every person that would ever live to be saved. In his perfect wisdom, he did not. Why? God will be glorified in his judgment and wrath on the unregenerate (Rom 9:22). Once again, this is his holy justice against evil mankind that hates their perfect creator. We punish criminals that break our laws in the earth realm. We even execute those who deserve to die for their crimes do we not? How much more will God destroy those who have committed crimes against heaven? Divine justice is not only fair, it is absolutely necessary! God would violate his own holiness if he did not punish evil men.

What is utterly amazing of our creator is that he willfully chose some, an innumerable mass of sinful, undeserving, wretched humanity to receive his kingdom because he delights in doing so. One of the most tender loving verses in the Bible comes from our Lord Jesus who said, "Do not be afraid little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the Kingdom" (Luke 12:32).

The writer believes sufficient evidence has been presented that proves that reprobation exists. To the natural human mind, it is a repulsive doctrine. Most Christians reject this doctrine alone with divine election. We have not been taught these precious truths in our Churches growing up until the present time so to most, they are offensive because they believe it casts a shadow on God's omnibenevolent nature.  What I will do in my next article is try to explain the complaints many bring up regarding preaching the gospel from a reformed perspective.