Medeba – Medes, Media

Medeba

Medeba (Numbers 21. Joshua 13, 1 Chronicles 19:7, Isaiah 15:2). A town in the Mishor, or ‘plain’ E. of Jordan, an hour and a half S. of Heshbon on the Eoman road from Heshbon to Kerak. It was taken from Moab by Sihon and then conquered by Israel (Numbers 21) and assigned to Eeuben (Joshua 13:9–16 [v.9 ‘all the tableland — Medeba to Dibon’; V." ‘all the tableland to Medeba’]). The Syrians who came to assist Ammon (1 Chronicles 19) pitched at Medeba, which was apparently then Ammonite. Later, Moab regained Medeba, for Omri, according to the Moabite Stone, 1. 8, took Mehedeba, and Israel held it forty years, till Mesha recovered it and rebuilt the cities held by Omri and Ahab. Joram and Jehoshaphat made an unsuccessful attempt to retake these cities (2 Kings 3), but Jeroboam ii. drove out the Moabites. Moab again held Medeba(Is 15:2. and probably also Jeremiah 48:2; but see Madmen). In Maccabsean times it was the stronghold of a robber clan, Jambri, which killed John, eldest son of Mattathias. Jonathan avenged this (1 Maccabees 18:6–42; Jos. Ant. xiii. i. 2, 4). John Hyrcanus besieged Medeba (Jos. Ant. xiii. ix. 1). Alexander Jannsus took it from the Arabians, and Hyrcanus II. promised to restore it to Aretas (ib. xiii. xv. 4, XIV. i. 4). During the Byzantine period Medeba was a flourishing Christian centre, the seat of a bishopric, and represented at the Council of Chalcedon. In 1880 a colony of Christians from Kerak settled there. Many ancient remains have come to light, — a large pool with solid walls, remains of gates, towers, four churches, some fine mosaics, especially a deeply interesting and important mosaic map of Christian Palestine and Egypt.

C. H. W. Johns.

Medes, Media

A people and country called by the same word, Madai — in Hebrew and Assyrian. The Medes were the first of the Iranian immigrants to form a settled government on the borders of the old Semitic realm. As early as the 9th cent. B.C. they began to occupy the mountainous country south and south-east of the Caspian Sea, and by the middle of the 7th cent, their territory extended southward to the borders of Elam. Their chief city was Ecbatana, the Achmetha of Ezra 6:2 and the modern Hamaddn. The Assyrians opposed them, and finally subdued them under Tiglath-pileser iii. and Sargon, and the latter deported (b.c. 721) some of them as captives to Samaria (2 Kings 17:6 18:11). In the later years of the Assyrian empire they regained their independence, and under their king, Cyaxares, who had formed an alliance with the rising Chaldiean power, they destroyed the city of Nineveh (B.C. 607), and therewith the Assyrian dominion itself. By agreement with the Chaldseans, who restricted themselves to the lowlands, they speedily occupied the northern highlands as far as Cappadocia. Meanwhile the southern immigration from eastern Iran had settled to the east of the Persian Gulf and founded the Persian community. The southern portion of Elam soon fell to them, but they became vassals of their Mediankindred. Under Cyrus the Great, Astyages, king of the Medes, yielded his throne to the Persians (B.C. 550), who henceforth held the hegemony of the Iranian race.

Among the Semitic peoples, however, the name of the Medes continued long to be more familiar than that of the Persians, partly by reason of their greater antiquity, and partly because the Medes formed the principal portion of the Iranian population. Hence the word is more frequent than ‘Persia,’ except in the later books of the OT. Madai is mentioned in Genesis 10:2 among the sons of Japheth, with no allusion to the Persians. So the Medes and not the Persians are mentioned in prophecy as the prospective destroyers of Babylon (Isaiah 13:17 21:2, Jeremiah 25:25 51:11; cf. Elam, p. 211). In Acts 2:9 the Medes are vaguely mentioned, where the reference is to Jews or proselytes living in Media and using the language of the country. Media was of great importance in the history of rehgion, since it was there, probably in the early years of the 7th cent. B.C., that Zoroaster lived and taught. J. F. M’ Cdrdy.

MEDIATOR, iQiy)IATION.— The word ‘mediator’ (Gr. mesltes) occurs in the NT, once of Moses as the mediator of the Law (Galatians 3:19, 20), in the other instances of Christ as the " one mediator between God and man’ (1 Timothy 2:5, and the mediator of a ‘better’ (Hebrews 8:6), or ‘new’ (9:15 12:24, in latter passage ‘new’ in sense of ‘recent’) covenant. The verbal form occurs in Hebrews 6:17 [RV ‘interposed (Gr. mediated) with an oath’]. The LXX has the term once in Job 18:3 (EV ‘daysman’). But the idea of mediation, that is, of God dealing with man, or man with God, not directly but through the interposition of another, has a leading place throughout Scripture. Different aspects of mediation, however, need to be distinguished. As regards the fundamental relation of man to God, Jesus, in the NT, is the one and sole Mediator.

1. The most general form of mediation is intercessory prayer. This is the privilege of all (cf. James 5:16). Well-known Scripture examples are the intercession of Abraham for Sodom (Genesis 18:23–33), of Moses for Israel (Exodus 32), of Samuel for Israel (1 Samuel 7:8–12). Jeremiah (15:1) singles out Moses and Samuel as the chief representatives of this form of prayer. Probably an element of intercession enters into all effective mediation. St. John (ch. 17) preserves the great intercessory prayer of Jesus after the Last Supper). and intercession is declared to be a chief exercise of Christ’s mediatorial function in heaven (Romans 8:34, H^‘7:25, 1 John 1:1). Intercessory prayer is a duty of the Christian (1 Timothy 2:1, 2), but always and only in the name of Christ, who in the same context is declared to be the ‘one mediator’ (v. 5).

2, Mediation has a peculiar place in the formation of the great covenants. It is the singular fact in connexion with the covenant with Abraham of which St. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews in different ways take notice, that it involved no mediator (Genesis 12:1–3 15. 17). It was a covenant of promise absolutely (Galatians 3:15–18). This seems to be the force of St. Paul’s peculiar saying, ‘Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one’ (Galatians 3; there were not, as in the covenant through Moses, two contracting parties; the covenant proceeded solely from God, and was unconditional). In Hebrews 6 this is carried further. God himself took the place of Mediator in this covenant, and, because He could swear by no higher than Himself, ‘interposed (mediated) with an oath’ in ratification of His promise (cf. Genesis 22:15–18). It is different in the covenant vrith Israel at Sinai, where Moses is throughout (by God’s appointment and the people’s own desire. Exodus 19:10–25 20:18–21) the mediator between God and the people (Galatians 3:19, point of contrast between law and promise). Finally, mediation is the law in the ‘new’ and ‘better’ covenant, as the passages in Hebrews declare. The reason is that this perfect and eternal covenant, procuring forgiveness of sins, and removing all barriers to access to God, could be formed only on the basis of a reconciling sacrifice; and this Jesus alone, the Son of God, had the qualification to offer. It is noticeable. therefore, that all the passages that speak of Jesus as ‘Mediator’ do it in direct connexion with His sacrificial death; 1 Timothy 2:5 ‘one mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesys’ connects with v. 6 ‘who gave himself a ransom for all’; Hebrews 9:15 declares: ‘For this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant’ (cf. Romans 3:25) 12, where to come ‘to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant’ is to come ‘to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better than that of Abel’; so also 8:6 (cf. the context, v. 3). It is this fact, that Jesus has made the perfect sacrifice for sin, coupled with His unique dignity, as Son of God, which constitutes Him the Mediator sui generis.

3. Here, accordingly, is brought to consummation the last great aspect of mediation in the OT — the mediation of a sacriflcing priesthood. Prophets also might be called mediators, as commissioned revealers of the will of God to the people; but mediation is peculiarly connected with the functions of the priest. In earlier times the head of the family was the priest; an interesting example of patriarchal mediation is given in the Book of Job 1:5 for his sons; cf. 42:7–9 for his friends). Under the Law the people could approach God only through the Aaronic priesthood; but the mediatorial function was peculiarly vested in, and exemplified by, the high priest . To him it pertained, on the one hand, to represent the people before God (cf. the ephod and breastplate, with their precious stones graven vrith the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, Exodus 39), and to offer sacrifices for their sins (Hebrews 2:17 8:3; he alone had the right of entry into the Holiest of all on the great annual Day of Atonement, He 9:7) and, on the other, to represent God to the people, in declaring His vrill by the Urim and Thummim, and blessing in His name (cf . Deuteronomy 10:8 33:8, prerogatives of the high priest). This twofold aspect of the high-priestly function, as the Epistle to the Hebrews seeks to show, is in a perfect and abiding way realized in Christ, who is thus the one true Mediator, our ‘great high priest, who hath passed through the heavens’ (4:14). See Atonement, Propitiation, Reconciliation.

James Obr.