MEDEBA

(Medʹe·ba) [possibly, water of quiet].

This place is represented by modern Madeba, a town located on a low, gently sloping hill about twelve miles (19 kilometers) E of the northern end of the Dead Sea. The ancient “King’s Road” linked it with other cities E of the Jordan. (Compare Numbers 20:17.) Situated on a treeless but fertile plain or plateau averaging about 2,300 feet (700 meters) in elevation, Medeba itself lies at an altitude of 2,540 feet (774 meters) above sea level. In the plain, the “tableland of Medeba,” flocks of sheep and goats find pasturage.—Josh. 13:9, 16.

After the Israelites defeated Amorite King Sihon, Medeba came to be in the territory given to the tribe of Reuben. (Josh. 13:8, 9, 15, 16) It appears that earlier the Amorites had taken Medeba from the Moabites. (Num. 21:25-30) Several centuries later, in a fight against the Ammonites, the army of King David under Joab’s command defeated Aramaean (Syrian) mercenary forces encamped before Medeba.—1 Chron. 19:6-16.

According to the Moabite Stone (line 8), Israel’s King Omri (c. 951-940 B.C.E.) took possession of the “land of Medeba,” it remaining in Israelite hands for forty years. Line 30 of the same monument, though partially defaced, appears to indicate that Moab’s King Mesha succeeded in gaining control of Medeba and rebuilt it and other cities in the area. It may be, however, that the Israelites regained dominion over Medeba when Jeroboam II (c. 844-803 B.C.E.) “restored the boundary of Israel from the entering in of Hamath clear to the sea of the Arabah.” (2 Ki. 14:25) But this would not have been for long, since Isaiah’s pronouncement (c. 778-732) against Moab shows that Medeba was by then under Moabite control, and they were foretold to ‘howl’ over the loss of the city.—Isa. 15:1, 2.

MEDES, MEDIA

The Medes were an Aryan race, hence of Japhetic stock and evidently descended from Japheth’s son Madai. (Gen. 10:2) They were closely related to the Persians in race, language and religion.

As a people, the Medes do not begin to appear in Biblical history until the eighth century B.C.E., while the first mention of them in available secular records dates from the time of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III, a contemporary of King Jehu (905-876 B.C.E.). Sometime between the dispersion of peoples resulting from the confusion of languages at Babel (Gen. 11:8, 9) and the reign of Shalmaneser III, the Medes had entered into the Iranian plateau region. Archaeological and other evidence is viewed as indicating their presence there from about the middle of the second millennium B.C.E. onward.

GEOGRAPHY

Though its boundaries undoubtedly fluctuated, the ancient region of Media basically lay W and S of the Caspian Sea, being separated from the coastland of that sea by the Elburz mountain range. In the NW it evidently reached beyond Lake Urmia to the Araxes River valley, while on its western boundary the Zagros Mountains served as a barrier between Media and the land of Assyria and the lowlands of the Tigris; to the E lay a large desert region, and on the S the country of Elam.

The land of the Medes was thus mainly a mountainous plateau averaging from 3,000 to 5,000 feet (914.4 to 1,524 meters) above sea level. A considerable portion of the land is arid steppe, rainfall being generally scanty, though there are several fertile plains that are highly productive. Most of the rivers flow toward the great central desert, where their waters are dissipated into marshes and swamp, these drying up in the hot summer and leaving salt deposits. Natural barriers made it relatively easy to defend; the western mountain range is the highest, with numerous peaks over 14,000 feet (4,267.2 meters) high, but the tallest single peak, Mount Demavend, is found in the Elburz range near the Caspian Sea. Rising to a height of 18,934 feet (5,771 meters), it is evidently the “Mount Bikni” referred to so frequently in the Assyrian cuneiform texts dealing with the Medes.

PRINCIPAL OCCUPATIONS

Evidently then, as now, most of the people lived in small villages or were nomadic, stock raising being a principal occupation. Cuneiform texts recounting Assyrian incursions into Media present such a picture and show that the excellent breed of horses raised by the Medes was one of the main prizes sought by the invaders. Herds of sheep, goats, asses, mules and cows were also pastured on the good grazing grounds of the high valleys. On Assyrian reliefs Medes are sometimes represented as wearing what appear to be sheepskin coats over their tunics and having high-laced boots, necessary equipment for pastoral work on the plateaus where the winters brought snow and bitter cold. Archaeological evidence shows the Medes to have had capable metalsmiths working in bronze and gold.

HISTORY

The Medes left virtually no written records; what is known of them is derived from the Bible record, from Assyrian texts, and also from the classical Greek historians. The Medes appear to have been formed into numerous petty kingdoms under tribal chieftains, and the boastful accounts of Assyrian Emperors Shamshi-adad V, Tiglath-pileser III, and Sargon II refer to their victories over certain ‘city chieftains’ of the distant land of the Medes. The beginning of Sargon’s reign corresponds approximately to the fall of Samaria (740 B.C.E.), and, following that Assyrian victory over the kingdom of Israel, the Israelites were sent into places of exile in Assyria and “in the cities of the Medes,” some of which were then in vassalage to Assyria.—2 Ki. 17:6; 18:11.

Assyrian efforts to subjugate “the insubmissive Medes” continued under Assyrian Emperor Esar-haddon, son of Sennacherib and evidently a contemporary of King Manasseh of Judah (716-661 B.C.E.). In one of his inscriptions Esar-haddon speaks of “a district on the border of the salt-desert which lies in the land of the distant Medes, on the edge of Mount Bikni, the lapis-lazuli mountain, . . . powerful chieftains who had not submitted to my yoke,—themselves, together with their people, their riding-horses, cattle, sheep, asses and (Bactrian) camels,—an enormous spoil, I carried off to Assyria. . . . My royal tribute and tax I imposed upon them, yearly.”—Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 1927, Vol. II, by D. D. Luckenbill, pp. 215, 216.

According to the Greek historian Herodotus (Book I, sec. 96) the Medes were formed into a united kingdom under a ruler named Deioces. Some modern authorities believe Deioces to be the ruler named in the inscriptions as “Daiaukku,” who was captured and deported to Hamath by Sargon II as a result of one of the Assyrian raids into the region of Media. However, most scholars consider that it was not until the time of Cyaxares (or Kyaxares, a grandson of Deioces according to Herodotus) that the kings of Media began to unite under a particular ruler. Even then they may well have been like the petty kings of Canaan, who at times fought under the direction of a particular king while still maintaining a considerable measure of independence.—Compare Joshua 11:1-5.

The Medes had been growing in strength despite Assyrian incursions and now came to constitute Assyria’s most dangerous rival. When Nabopolassar of Babylon, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, rebelled against Assyria, Cyaxares allied his forces with the Babylonians. Following the Median capture of Asshur in Nabopolassar’s twelfth year (634 B.C.E.), Cyaxares (called U-ma-kis-tar in the Babylonian records) met with Nabopolassar before the captured city and they “established among themselves good relations and friendship.” Two sources, Berossus (quoted by Eusebius) and Abydenus, say that Nabopolassar’s son, Nebuchadnezzar, married the daughter of the Median king, her name being Amytis (or Amuhia according to Abydenus). Historians disagree, however, as to whether Amytis was the daughter of Cyaxares or of his son Astyages.

With Babylonians defeat Assyria

After further battles against the Assyrians, finally in the fourteenth year of Nabopolassar (632/631) the combined forces of the Medes and the Babylonians conquered Nineveh. (Zeph. 2:13) Assyrian resistance was transferred to Haran (some 225 miles [362 kilometers]) to the W but, though receiving assistance from Egypt, the effort was ineffectual and the Assyrian Empire was split up between the Medes and the Babylonians. (Nah. 2:8-13; 3:18, 19) The Medes appear to have taken the northern portion of the territory while the Babylonians took the southern and southwestern portion, including Syria and Palestine. Cyaxares thereafter pushed into Asia Minor as far as the Halys River, where a war with Lydia resulted in a stalemate and the Halys became the far western boundary of the Median Empire. This empire now extended over the greater part of the Iranian plateau, Assyria and northern Mesopotamia, Armenia and Cappadocia.

Lose dominant position to Persians

At this time the Medes, with their capital at Ecbatana (Ezra 6:2), held the dominant position over the related Persians, who had occupied the area to the S of Media. Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon both relate that Cyaxares’ successor, Astyages (called “Ishtumegu” in the cuneiform texts) had given his daughter Mandane in marriage to Persian ruler Cambyses, resulting in the birth of Cyrus (II). Cyrus, upon becoming king of Anshan, a Persian province, united the Persian forces in an effort to throw off the Median yoke. The so-called Nabonidus Chronicle indicates that it was in the sixth year (550 B.C.E.) of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, that the opposing forces met in battle. The account states that the “army of Ishtumegu [Astyages] revolted against him” and “in fetters” they delivered him to Cyrus, who thereafter seized the Median capital. (Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 1955 ed., p. 305) From this point forward Media merges with Persia to form the Medo-Persian Empire. Thus, the vision received by the prophet Daniel aptly likened the dual power of Medo-Persia to a two-horned ram, the taller of the two horns being “the one that came up afterward,” representing the ascendancy of the Persians and their dominance of the empire for the remainder of its existence.—Dan. 8:3, 20.

The evidence is, however, that Cyrus gave positions of power and authority to the Medes so that they continued to maintain a considerable measure of prominence within his government. Thus, the prophet Daniel interpreted to King Belshazzar the cryptic writing on the wall as predicting the division of the Babylonian Empire and its being given “to the Medes and the Persians,” and elsewhere in the book of Daniel the Medes continue to be listed first in the phrase the “law of the Medes and the Persians.” (Dan. 5:28; 6:8, 12, 15) In the following century the book of Esther (1:3, 14, 18, 19) reverses the order, with one exception (10:2) in which the Medes are listed as preceding the Persians historically.

With Persians defeat Babylon

In the eighth century B.C.E., the prophet Isaiah had foretold that Jehovah would arouse against Babylon “the Medes, who account silver itself as nothing and who, as respects gold, take no delight in it. And their bows will dash even young men to pieces.” (Isa. 13:17-19; 21:2) The term “Medes” here may well include the Persians, even as the classical Greek historians commonly used the term to embrace both Medes and Persians. Their disdaining silver and gold evidently indicates that in Babylon’s case conquest was the prime motive with them rather than spoil, so that no bribe or offer of tribute would buy them off from their determined purpose. The Medes, like the Persians, used the bow as a principal weapon. The wooden bows, though sometimes mounted with bronze or copper (compare Psalm 18:34), likely ‘dashed the young men of Babylon to pieces’ by the hail of arrows, individually polished so as to penetrate even deeper.—Jer. 51:11.

It may be noted that Jeremiah (51:11, 28) makes reference to the “kings of Media” as among those attacking Babylon, the plural perhaps indicating that even under Cyrus, a subordinate Median king or kings may have continued to exist, a situation by no means incompatible with ancient practice. (Compare also Jeremiah 25:25.) Thus, too, we find that when Babylon was captured by the combined forces of Medes, Persians, Elamites and other neighboring tribes, it was a Mede named Darius, son of Ahasuerus, who was “made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans,” perhaps as an appointee of King Cyrus the Persian.—Dan. 5:31; 9:1; see DARIUS No. 1.

Conquered by Alexander the Great

In the time of King Ahasuerus (likely Xerxes I), reference was still made to the “military force of Persia and Media,” the king’s privy council was formed of “seven princes of Persia and Media,” and the laws were still known as the “laws of Persia and Media.” (Esther 1:3, 14, 19) In 330 B.C.E. Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire and occupied Media. Following his death the southern part of Media came to form part of the Seleucid Empire, while the northern part became an independent kingdom. Though it was dominated variously by the Parthians and by the Seleucid Empire, Greek geographer Strabo indicated that a Median dynasty continued in the first century C.E. At Jerusalem, Medes along with Parthians, Elamites and persons of other nationalities were present at Pentecost in the year 33 C.E. Since they are spoken of as “Jews, reverent men, from every nation,” they may have been descendants of those Jews exiled to cities of the Medes following the Assyrian conquest of Israel, or perhaps some were proselytes to the Jewish faith.—Acts 2:1, 5, 9.

By the third century C.E. the Medes had merged with the rest of the nation of the Iranians, thus ceasing to exist as a distinct people.

[Map on page 1127]

MEDIA

ASSYRIA

CASPIAN SEA

Araxes River

Lake Urmia

Elburz Mountains

Ecbatana

Zagros Mountains

Tigris River

Euphrates River

ELAM

PERSIAN GULF

MEDIATOR

One who interposes between two parties at variance to reconcile them; an intercessor; an intermediary agent or go-between. The Greek word me·siʹtes, “mediator,” used in the Christian Greek Scriptures, appears in the Septuagint at Job 9:33: “Would that he our mediator were present, and a reprover, and one who should hear the cause between both.”—Bagster.

BLOOD REQUIRED FOR COVENANT VALIDATION

The inspired writer of the book of Hebrews discusses two principal covenants, the Law covenant and the new covenant. In this discussion he refers to Christ’s mediating the new covenant. (Heb. 9:15) His words at Hebrews 9:16 have been a subject of controversy among Bible scholars. Accordingly, the text has been rendered in the following ways: “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.” (AV) “For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.” (RS) “For where a covenant is it is necessary for the death to be brought in of him that hath covenanted.” (Ro) “For where there is a covenant, the death of the human covenanter needs to be furnished.” (NW) “For where a covenant is, the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary.” (Yg) “For where a Covenant exists, the Death of that which has ratified it is necessary to be produced.” (ED) “For where a covenant is, there is necessity for the death of that which establisheth the covenant.”—Improved Newcome Version.

Since the text is controversial, we herewith present the literal rendering as set forth in interlinear translations of the Greek text: “Where for covenant, death necessity to be borne of the one having made for self covenant.” (Heb. 9:16, Kingdom Interlinear Translation) “Where for a covenant, death necessary to be produced of that having been appointed.” (ED) “For where there is a covenant, the death there is necessity to be offered of the one making covenant.”—The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Alfred Marshall.

The rendering of di·a·theʹke as “covenant” appears to express more correctly the writer’s meaning than “testament” or “will.” The latter renderings are inconsistent with the use of the term in the Septuagint as well as in many places in the Christian Greek Scriptures. (Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; 7:8; Rom. 9:4; 11:27; Heb. 8:6-10; 12:24) “Will” and “testament” also appear to be out of harmony with what the writer of Hebrews is talking about, as he is speaking of the Law covenant and the new covenant in the context. Neither the Law covenant nor the new covenant was a “will.”

At Hebrews 9:16 the writer was evidently speaking of covenants between God and man (not man and man) as requiring sacrifices. And it may be noted that, particularly with the Hebrews, approaches to God and covenants with God were regularly based on sacrifices. The root from which the Hebrew word b^erithʹ, “covenant,” is drawn means “to cut,” the allusion being to victims sacrificed and sometimes cut in pieces on the occasion of entering a covenant. It is quite obvious that the Law covenant and the new covenant required the shedding of blood in order to go into operation or to be effective before God. Otherwise God would not have recognized them as valid, nor dealt with the persons involved on the basis of a covenant relationship. (Heb. 9:17) For the validation of the Law covenant the sacrifice used was that of animals—bulls and goats. (Heb. 9:19) For validating the new covenant, the sacrifice was the human life of Jesus Christ.—Luke 22:20.

THE MEDIATOR OF THE LAW COVENANT

Moses was the mediator of the Law covenant between Jehovah God and the nation of Israel. Jehovah spoke with him “mouth to mouth” (Num. 12:8), although actually Jehovah’s angel spoke representatively for God. (Acts 7:38; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2) Moses was an intermediary spokesman for Jehovah to Israel. (Ex. 19:3, 7, 9; 24:9-18) As mediator he was “entrusted with all [Jehovah’s] house.” (Num. 12:7) In mediating the Law covenant he assisted the nation of Israel to keep the covenant and to receive its benefits.

Validation of the Law covenant

The apostle Paul says: “Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one.” (Gal. 3:20) In the Law covenant God was one party; the nation of Israel was the other ‘party.’ Due to their sinful condition, they were unable to approach God in a covenant. They needed a mediator. Their weakness was demonstrated in their request to Moses: “You speak with us, and let us listen; but let not God speak with us for fear we may die.” (Ex. 20:19; Heb. 12:18-20) Accordingly Jehovah mercifully constituted Moses as mediator of the Law covenant, and arranged for animals to be sacrificed to validate the covenant. Moses, of course, was also imperfect and sinful; however, he was undoubtedly declared righteous on the basis of his faith, as Abraham had been so declared earlier. (Heb. 11:23-28; see DECLARE RIGHTEOUS [How “counted” righteous].) On the occasion of the inauguration of the covenant Moses officiated, directing the sacrifice of the animals. Then he sprinkled their blood on the scroll or the “book of the covenant.” He read the book to the people, setting forth the terms, and the people responded by agreeing to obey. Moses then sprinkled them (doubtless the representative older men) with the blood, saying: “Here is the blood of the covenant that Jehovah has concluded with you as respects all these words.”—Ex. 24:3-8; Heb. 9:18-22.

Inauguration of the priesthood

The designated priests of the house of Aaron could not begin functioning as priests on their own. They had to be installed in office under the direction of God’s mediator Moses. When this took place, Nisan 1-7, 1512 B.C.E., Moses anointed the tabernacle and its furniture and utensils and also anointed Aaron with the oil of special composition. After filling the hands of Aaron and his sons with sacrificial materials, Moses waved their filled hands before Jehovah, thereby consecrating them or ‘filling their hands with power’ for the priesthood. Afterward he spattered them with the anointing oil and blood from the altar. So one function of Moses’ mediatorial office was the installing and setting in operation of the priesthood, which was a feature of the Law covenant.—Lev. chap. 8; Heb. 7:11; see INSTALLATION.

Moses also played a significant part in connection with the first services performed by the newly installed priesthood, Nisan 8, 1512 B.C.E., as he directed the procedure and, along with Aaron, blessed the people. (Lev. chap. 9) Throughout the institution of all things pertaining to the Law covenant he acted in his official capacity as mediator.