WARS OF THE JEWS BY JOSEPHUS (1st Century) Questions: SOLVED

[rakovsky]

One relevant issue with Questions 2(B) and 4 is that some skeptics claim that Daniel 9 was not about the 70 AD destruction because Josephus relates Daniel's prophecy to Antiochus' time (2nd cent. BC). But if one actually goes to Josephus' passage, they see that he relates Daniel's Book to both Antiochus and to the first century.

I am thinking that maybe one part of Daniel was about Antiochus and Daniel 9 was about the Roman conquest.

Wikipedia's article on the Third Temple says:

Not to be confused with Ezekiel's Temple.

Architectural plans for Ezekiel's Temple exist in Chapters 40–47 of the Book of Ezekiel, which predates the Second Temple. ...

While there are a number of differing views amongst Christianity with regard to the significance or the requirement of a third temple being built in Jerusalem, according to the writers of the New Testament, the New Covenant (spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31–34) is marked by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer (Ezekiel 36:26–27) and that therefore every believer's body and every gathering of believers comprise the temple

It sounds like Ezekiel's plans for the Temple differed from the Second Temple. So I don't know if that means that he was taken metaphorically or that he must have been referring to a third temple.

Since his plans predated the Third Temple, is there any place where he directly says that he means that he is talking about a Third Temple, or is this just inferred from his speaking in apocalyptic terms or from how the Second Temple differed?

The Wikipedia entry on Ezekiel's Temple says:

Some Christian interpretations of Ezekiel's temple are: it is the temple that Zerubbabel should have built; a literal temple to be rebuilt during the millennial reign of Christ, a temple which is symbolic of the worship of God by the Christian church today, or a symbol of the future and eternal reign of God.

The article also gives a theory whereby the Antichrist would build a Third Temple and so Ezekiel was really describing a Fourth Temple.

Lambert Dolphin writes in his essay on Ezekiel's Temple about Zechariah's prophecy of the Messiah building a temple, and also about how the temple in Ezekiel differed from the Second Temple that was actually built.

I think that there was already a Temple when Zechariah was writing, and if so, this could infer a Third or Fourth Temple described by Ezekiel. On the other hand, if the Temple is built to the north of Jerusalem like Lambert says, then it wouldn't necessarily entail demolishing the Second Temple.

The Chabad website addresses differences between the Second Temple and Ezekiel's Temple this way:

---

The famed commentator, Rabbi Sholomo Yitzchaki (Rashi), quotes from the sages to explain these verses [in Ezekiel 40-48]:

The second ascent to the Holy Land of Israel during the time of Ezra was meant to be like the first entry through Joshua—to come about by force and through a miracle. This is what the Talmud states,3 bringing proof from the verse where it states twice [the words] “cross over,” “Your people cross over, O G‑d, until this nation that You have acquired crosses over.”4 This building would have been fit for them then, when they emerged from exile, had there been an everlasting redemption. However, their sin caused this to not happen; for their repentance was not suitable. In other words, they did not resolve to stop sinning. Therefore, they were freed only through the sanction of Cyrus and his son. Some say that their sin in Babylon was that they stumbled regarding gentile women.5

This, explain the commentators, is the reason why they did not build the second Temple according to the specifications in the prophecy in Ezekiel. That Temple was to be an everlasting edifice, as the verse there states, “and I shall dwell among them forever.”6 Instead, when it came time to rebuild the second Temple, G‑d commanded through his prophets Chaggai, Zechariah and Malachi not to build it according to the specifications in Ezekiel.7

Indeed, when the Rabbis referred to the second Temple period, they would say it was a partial redemption only. For not only were the Jews still under foreign rule, but the second Temple also lacked some key components—including the Holy Ark.8

However, even though the second Temple did not have the everlasting quality of the Temple of Ezekiel’s prophecy, the builders did incorporate certain parts of the prophecy into its construction.

---

So in the article above, it sounds like the Chabad website is suggesting that Ezekiel's Temple was theoretical or planned or conditional, conditioned on the righteousness of the returning exiles, rather than being an unconditional future apocalyptic Temple.

I guess you could theorize that the apocalyptic third Temple, if any such temple would be built, would be of different design than Ezekiel's theoretical or conditional Temple.

The Christian Research Institute article on Ezekiel's Temple sees the temple of Ezekiel as only conditional and as a prefigurement of Yeshua:

---

Making Sense of the Vision. How then are we to understand the temple vision? First, one might reasonably refer to the vision as that which “might have been,” had the Jewish exiles in Babylon exhibited a more thorough repentance than they did. There is an indication that the realization of this vision in Israel’s future was contingent on the people being sufficiently ashamed, or repentant, of their past sins: “Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the pattern. And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple” (Ezek. 43:10–11).

The response of the Jews to their opportunity to return and to rebuild their temple was notoriously tepid. Only a small remnant opted even to return to Jerusalem, while the rest were content to remain in Babylon. As a result, the temple they built proved to be inferior to the one that Ezekiel described.

Though the Jews did not meet the conditions to have such a temple as Ezekiel’s, the pattern preserved in these chapters stands as a description of an intended order, which, had it materialized, would have testified, as the tabernacle once did, as a type and shadow of “heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5)—the new order in Jesus Christ. This, we may assume, was the long-term purpose served by the vision.

Though some features of the vision were probably intended symbolically from the start (e.g., the seemingly miraculous, ever-deepening river), it is probable that the temple and its rituals would have been literally instituted, as here described, had Israel met God’s conditions.

Whether or not the temple had ever actually been rebuilt, the new revelation in Christ encourages us to see its pattern as having been fulfilled in Jesus Christ Himself, who is the final atoning sacrifice and the eternal high priest of God’s people.

[rakovsky]

For Question 4, the only prophecy that I found about the Second Temple's destruction explicitly was in Daniel 9.
You could maybe make inferences from other things, eg. the 's violations or the Messianic Temple building prophecies that the 2nd one would get knocked down, but even there I don't know if it's direct or inarguable.

[rakovsky]

May 1, 2019 9:40:17 GMT -8 alon said:

Ezekiel 40-42 describes a foursquare Temple, but the only prophecy I can think of concerning its capture is the one in Daniel.


Dan C

What does foursquare mean (just built with a square base?), and how did he specifically define the Temple that way?

[alon]

rakovsky said: One relevant issue with Questions 2(B) and 4 is that some skeptics claim that Daniel 9 was not about the 70 AD destruction because Josephus relates Daniel's prophecy to Antiochus' time (2nd cent. BC). But if one actually goes to Josephus' passage, they see that he relates Daniel's Book to both Antiochus and to the first century.
I am thinking that maybe one part of Daniel was about Antiochus and Daniel 9 was about the Roman conquest.

Wikipedia's article on the Third Temple says:
Not to be confused with Ezekiel's Temple.



Architectural plans for Ezekiel's Temple exist in Chapters 40–47 of the Book of Ezekiel, which predates the Second Temple. ...
While there are a number of differing views amongst Christianity with regard to the significance or the requirement of a third temple being built in Jerusalem, according to the writers of the New Testament, the New Covenant (spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31–34) is marked by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer (Ezekiel 36:26–27) and that therefore every believer's body and every gathering of believers comprise the temple



It sounds like Ezekiel's plans for the Temple differed from the Second Temple. So I don't know if that means that he was taken metaphorically or that he must have been referring to a third temple.
Since his plans predated the Third Temple, is there any place where he directly says that he means that he is talking about a Third Temple, or is this just inferred from his speaking in apocalyptic terms or from how the Second Temple differed?

I’d say it is inferred, since as you say the 3rd Temple is different. As to Daniel’s prophecy, it is like most prophecy in that it is vague enough to be applied to more than one time/place/event. This is due in large part to the Hebrew understanding of time being alinear; it is in their view a spiral wherein events can be linked and often repeat.

rakovsky said: The Wikipedia entry on Ezekiel's Temple says:
Some Christian interpretations of Ezekiel's temple are: it is the temple that Zerubbabel should have built; a literal temple to be rebuilt during the millennial reign of Christ, a temple which is symbolic of the worship of God by the Christian church today, or a symbol of the future and eternal reign of God.

The article also gives a theory whereby the Antichrist would build a Third Temple and so Ezekiel was really describing a Fourth Temple.

I’ve heard that, however scripture just says the AC comes and defiles the Temple. It says nothing about Zerubbabel building it wrong or the AC rebuilding it. We do know Z's plans were not to specs, probably because of labor problems. No one wanted to transfer to the new building site!

rakovsky said: Lambert Dolphin writes in his essay on Ezekiel's Temple about Zechariah's prophecy of the Messiah building a temple, and also about how the temple in Ezekiel differed from the Second Temple that was actually built.
I think that there was already a Temple when Zechariah was writing, and if so, this could infer a Third or Fourth Temple described by Ezekiel. On the other hand, if the Temple is built to the north of Jerusalem like Lambert says, then it wouldn't necessarily entail demolishing the Second Temple.

There is only one Temple site. If Lambert wants another site, he should think of becoming a Samaritan so he wouldn’t have to bother building at all.

rakovsky said: The Chabad website addresses differences between the Second Temple and Ezekiel's Temple this way:

The famed commentator, Rabbi Sholomo Yitzchaki (Rashi), quotes from the sages to explain these verses [in Ezekiel 40-48]:

The second ascent to the Holy Land of Israel during the time of Ezra was meant to be like the first entry through Joshua—to come about by force and through a miracle. This is what the Talmud states,3 bringing proof from the verse where it states twice [the words] “cross over,” “Your people cross over, O G‑d, until this nation that You have acquired crosses over.”4 This building would have been fit for them then, when they emerged from exile, had there been an everlasting redemption. However, their sin caused this to not happen; for their repentance was not suitable. In other words, they did not resolve to stop sinning. Therefore, they were freed only through the sanction of Cyrus and his son. Some say that their sin in Babylon was that they stumbled regarding gentile women.5

This, explain the commentators, is the reason why they did not build the second Temple according to the specifications in the prophecy in Ezekiel. That Temple was to be an everlasting edifice, as the verse there states, “and I shall dwell among them forever.”6 Instead, when it came time to rebuild the second Temple, G‑d commanded through his prophets Chaggai, Zechariah and Malachi not to build it according to the specifications in Ezekiel.7

Indeed, when the Rabbis referred to the second Temple period, they would say it was a partial redemption only. For not only were the Jews still under foreign rule, but the second Temple also lacked some key components—including the Holy Ark.8

However, even though the second Temple did not have the everlasting quality of the Temple of Ezekiel’s prophecy, the builders did incorporate certain parts of the prophecy into its construction.

So in the article above, it sounds like the Chabad website is suggesting that Ezekiel's Temple was theoretical or planned or conditional, conditioned on the righteousness of the returning exiles, rather than being an unconditional future apocalyptic Temple.
I guess you could theorize that the apocalyptic third Temple, if any such temple would be built, would be of different design than Ezekiel's theoretical or conditional Temple.

Chabad is an Orthodox website, and they are concerned only with improving their own spiritual condition as individuals and as a nation. But they can never achieve this desired spiritual state, because their real problem is they are not real Jews. They are converts from Eastern European Gentile stock. Now, a convert is considered by Jews to be a Jew. But like the Samaritans, they never got over not being born fully Jewish in the first place. So take the writings on Chabad with a grain of salt.

rakovsky said: The Christian Research Institute article on Ezekiel's Temple sees the temple of Ezekiel as only conditional and as a prefigurement of Yeshua:


Making Sense of the Vision. How then are we to understand the temple vision? First, one might reasonably refer to the vision as that which “might have been,” had the Jewish exiles in Babylon exhibited a more thorough repentance than they did. There is an indication that the realization of this vision in Israel’s future was contingent on the people being sufficiently ashamed, or repentant, of their past sins: “Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the pattern. And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple” (Ezek. 43:10–11).

The response of the Jews to their opportunity to return and to rebuild their temple was notoriously tepid. Only a small remnant opted even to return to Jerusalem, while the rest were content to remain in Babylon. As a result, the temple they built proved to be inferior to the one that Ezekiel described.

Though the Jews did not meet the conditions to have such a temple as Ezekiel’s, the pattern preserved in these chapters stands as a description of an intended order, which, had it materialized, would have testified, as the tabernacle once did, as a type and shadow of “heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5)—the new order in Jesus Christ. This, we may assume, was the long-term purpose served by the vision.

Though some features of the vision were probably intended symbolically from the start (e.g., the seemingly miraculous, ever-deepening river), it is probable that the temple and its rituals would have been literally instituted, as here described, had Israel met God’s conditions.

Whether or not the temple had ever actually been rebuilt, the new revelation in Christ encourages us to see its pattern as having been fulfilled in Jesus Christ Himself, who is the final atoning sacrifice and the eternal high priest of God’s people.

The RI artical is closer to the truth, in my opinion.

rakovsky said: What does foursquare mean (just built with a square base?), and how did he specifically define the Temple that way?

*Square corners.

[rakovsky]

For Question 5, Josephus' dating for how long the Second Temple lasted is an overestimate. In Book IV, he writes:

From its first foundation by King Solomon up to its present destruction, which took place in the second year of Vespasian's reign, the total period amounts to one thousand one hundred and thirty years seven months and fifteen days; from its rebuilding by Haggai in the second year of the reign of Cyrus until its fall under Vespasian to six hundred and thirty-nine years and forty-five days.

ie. Josephus says that the Temple lasted 639 years, but my calculation of his explanation gives 627 years:

The second year of Cyrus' reign as king of Persia was about 558 BC. 558 BC + 70 AD - 1 year for Year Zero = 627 years

That is, in my reading of Josephus, he was 12 years off. Of course, it's hard to read the second year of Cyrus' reign as referring to his reign as king of Parthia (558 BC), because the Jews returned at a later date, Cyrus' first year (537 BC), and only after their return could they start rebuilding. So scholars interpret Josephus as being farther off with his 639 years, since they take him referring to a later date when the temple was rebuilt.

Antti Laato in his essay The Seventy YearWeeks in the Book of Daniel writes:

Schürer notes that Josephus has the following inexact chronological data:

( )؛In Bell. Jud. VI, 4,8 Josephus says that between the second year of Cyrus and the destruction of the Second Temple there elapsed 639 years.

()؛؛ According to Ant. XX, between the return ( = first year of Cyrus) and Antiochus V Eupator (162 — 64) there were 414 years.

( )؛؛؛According to Ant. XIII, 11,1, Josephus reckons with 481 years between the return from the Exile and Aristobul I (105 —104).

According to data given by Josephus the first regnal year of Cyrus would be 570 B.C., 578 B.C. and 586 B. c. respectively. Schürer notes that in reality the first year of Cyrus and the return of the Judeans from the Exile occurred about 537 B. c.

Chris Sandoval writes in "The Failure of Daniel's Prophecies":

Josephus mistakenly synchronized the building of the Second Temple, which took place in the days of Haggai in 515 BC, with "the second year of Cyrus the king" in 538 BC. Either way, he says the Second Temple lasted 639 years until it was destroyed by Emperor Vespasian in 70 AD. Depending on the starting point, the error is either 32 years or 55 years (Wars VI.iv.8).

Rodger Young writes: "When Josephus says that the construction of the Second Temple was started “by Haggai, in the second year of Cyrus the king,” he has confused Cyrus (539 – 530 BC) with Darius I Hystaspes (522 – 486). It was in second year of Darius that reconstruction began, i.e. in Elul (Aug/Sep) of 520 BC (Haggai 1:15)."

Robert Anderson in Daniel in the Critics' Den proposes that since Haggai lived in the time of Darius, Josephus referred to Darius as Cyrus, but this makes Josephus' date of 639 years 50 years off historically:

[Josephus] refers to the prophet Haggai, who, with Zechariah, promoted the building of the second temple in the second year of Darius H ystaspis. As this historian speaks elsewhere of Artaxerxes as Cyrus,1 so here he calls Darius by that title. The period, therefore, was (according to our chronology) from B.C. 520 to A.D. 70-that is, 589 years-that is, about fifty years less than Josephus reckons.

Williamson's 1970 translation of Wars of the Jews IV gives this footnote: "these figures are considerably out: the second should be 589 years, the first approximately 1041."

Jeremy Hughes in "Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology" gives a hypothesis of schematic years, but then discounts the hypothesis.

The period from the foundation of the temple [1130 years before its destruction per Josephus] to its destruction by Titus therefore breaks down into a period of 491 years to the foundation of the second temple plus 639 years to its destruction. Now 491 years is one year greater than a schematic total of 490 years, and 639 years is a year short of a round total of 640 years, which makes it appear as if Josephus has disguised an originally schematic chronology by redividing it into two non-schematic periods. Alternatively, the original chronology may have specified a 490 year period from the foundation of the temple to the return from exile (in Cyrus' first year) followed by 640 years from the return to the destruction of the second temple. Either way, it is unlikely that Josephus would have created a schematic chronology which he then went on to conceal, so a more probable explanation is that he took over and adapted these totals from one of his sources.

I have trouble putting together what the "scheme" would be. I can see 490 years could refer to the Shmita cycle as with the 490 years of Daniel.

But then the 640 years is less clear. It could be referring to 640 years from Josephus' mistaken dating of Cyrus I's accession to the throne as if he took the throne in 570 BC.

[rakovsky]

Sept 25, 2019 20:18:59 GMT -8 alon said:

It sounds like Ezekiel's plans for the Temple differed from the Second Temple. So I don't know if that means that he was taken metaphorically or that he must have been referring to a third temple.
Since his plans predated the Third Temple, is there any place where he directly says that he means that he is talking about a Third Temple, or is this just inferred from his speaking in apocalyptic terms or from how the Second Temple differed?

I’d say it is inferred, since as you say the 3rd Temple is different. As to Daniel’s prophecy, it is like most prophecy in that it is vague enough to be applied to more than one time/place/event. This is due in large part to the Hebrew understanding of time being alinear; it is in their view a spiral wherein events can be linked and often repeat. 

I think maybe you meant Ezekiel's prophecy there.

[rakovsky]

Sept 25, 2019 20:18:59 GMT -8 alon said:

rakovsky said: Lambert Dolphin writes in his essay on Ezekiel's Temple about Zechariah's prophecy of the Messiah building a temple, and also about how the temple in Ezekiel differed from the Second Temple that was actually built.
I think that there was already a Temple when Zechariah was writing, and if so, this could infer a Third or Fourth Temple described by Ezekiel. On the other hand, if the Temple is built to the north of Jerusalem like Lambert says, then it wouldn't necessarily entail demolishing the Second Temple.

There is only one Temple site. If Lambert wants another site, he should think of becoming a Samaritan so he wouldn’t have to bother building at all.

This is a weird issue then. I can't tell why Lambert is claiming that Ezekiel's prophecy puts the new Temple north of the Temple Mount. Lambert writes on the TempleMount.org website:

...These changes in the entire land when Messiah comes are spoken of in numerous passages of the Bible:

* For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives which lies before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley; so that one half of the Mount shall withdraw northward, and the other half southward. And the valley of my mountains shall be stopped up, for the valley of the mountains shall touch the side of it; and you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. ... (Zechariah 14:2-10)
...

The prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 40-48) describes in great detail a temple in Israel that is much too large to fit on the present Temple Mount site. The Temple of Ezekiel proper measures about 875 feet square, and it sits in the middle of a large consecrated area (See inset in diagram below). Ezekiel's temple is also very different in many details from any previous temples that have existed in Israel (or elsewhere). Therefore most Bible scholars believe there will one day exist in the Holy Land a Fourth or "Millennial" Temple. 

Ezekiel also describes the reapportionment of the land in specific lots during the millennial kingdom. The temple and the temple district are not part of the rebuilt city of Jerusalem according to the details of this reapportionment. Note that the Temple area will be located to the North of rebuilt Jerusalem:

"When you allot the land as a possession, you shall set apart for the Lord a portion of the land as a holy district, twenty-five thousand cubits long and twenty thousand cubits broad; it shall be holy throughout its whole extent. Of this a square plot of five hundred by five hundred cubits shall be for the sanctuary, with fifty cubits for an open space around it. And in the holy district you shall measure off a section twenty-five thousand cubits long and ten thousand broad, in which shall be the sanctuary, the most holy place. It shall be the holy portion of the land; it shall be for the priests, who minister in the sanctuary and approach the Lord to minister to him; and it shall be a place for their houses and a holy place for the sanctuary. Another section, twenty-five thousand cubits long and ten thousand cubits broad, shall be for the Levites who minister at the temple, as their possession for cities to live in."

"Alongside the portion set apart as the holy district you shall assign for the possession of the city an area five thousand cubits broad, and twenty-five thousand cubits long it shall belong to the whole house of Israel."

"And to the prince shall belong the land on both sides of the holy district and the property of the city, on the west and on the east, corresponding in length to one of the tribal portions, and extending from the western to the eastern boundary of the land. It is to be his property in Israel. And my princes shall no more oppress my people; but they shall let the house of Israel have the land according to their tribes." (Ezekiel 45:1-8.)

"Adjoining the territory of Judah, from the east side to the west, shall be the portion which you shall set apart, twenty-five thousand cubits in breadth, and in length equal to one of the tribal portions, from the east side to the west, with the sanctuary in the midst of it. The portion which you shall set apart for the Lord shall be twenty-five thousand cubits in length, and twenty thousand in breadth." (Ezekiel 48)

I can't tell what in that quote above says that the temple is in the north.

Jack Kelley writes in "The Coming Temple":

Using the boundaries of the Promised Land given in Ezekiel 47:13-20, and plotting the land grants for the 12 tribes listed in Ezekiel 48:1-29 on a map of Israel, places the precincts of the Holy City somewhat north of the current City of Jerusalem. This new location is the ancient City of Shiloh, where the Tabernacle stood for nearly 400 years after the Israelites first conquered the Land. This is the Holy City and its name is Jehovah Shammah according to the last verse in Ezekiel. The Hebrew translates as “the LORD is here.” Since Shiloh is north of Jerusalem, the river that originates from the south side of the Temple will have to flow south for a time before intersecting with the east-west channel created by the earthquake.

Temple just north of the city ([Ezekiel] 40:2) ["In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south."]

[rakovsky]

Sept 25, 2019 20:18:59 GMT -8 alon said:

rakovsky said: What does foursquare mean (just built with a square base?), and how did he specifically define the Temple that way?

*Square corners.

You mean the corners have right angles or that they are actual squares themselves? I think you mean the former.

[rakovsky]

I appreciate your answers.

[rakovsky]

Sept 26, 2019 10:35:35 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

In Question 6, I asked about Josephus' reference in Book VI to prophecy:

...Thus the Jews after the demolition of Antonia, reduced the temple to a square, although they had it recorded in their oracles that the city and the sanctuary would be taken when the temple should become four-square...

Ezekiel references a foursquare court for the temple that he was predicting: "And he measured the court, a hundred cubits long, and a hundred cubits broad, foursquare; and the altar was before the house" (Ezek. 40:47).

But just because Ezekiel's temple would be four square doesn't mean that Ezekiel's Temple or the Second Temple would be captured after it was made four square. However, elsewhere Josephus did write that Ezekiel wrote about "these matters", meaning apparently the city's capture by Rome. So he could be seeing Ezekiel's writing on the foursquare temple to be about this event.

I guess you could put Daniel 9 and Ezekiel 40-41 together and theorize that Ezekiel is talking about a Messianic temple and Daniel 9 is talking about the Messiah's death and the Temple's capture, so that you could theorize that the Messiah would come, the temple would be changed to fit the messianic description in Ezekiel 40-41, and then the temple would be captured per Daniel 9.

In Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, David Edward Aune writes:

Ezeki 41:15-20 refers to the foursquare temple, but there is no ominous connection of that with the fall of the city. More probable is the suggestion that the prophecy referred to is Dan. 9:25-26, with its mention of square constructions and the destruction of the city and the sanctuary.

Daniel 9 references an open plaza and walls, but doesn't say "square". Sometimes the word rechob, plaza, is translated as open square, but it doesn't really mean a foursquare plaza necessarily.

So my answer is that he is talking about Ezekiel when he talks about the foursquare Temple.

[rakovsky]

May 1, 2019 10:27:50 GMT -8 alon said:

(Question 7) Do you agree with Josephus' idea that Justice inflicts on sinners a more severe punishment when they imagined that they avoided punishment because they weren't punished immediately?

In Chapter Book VII, Chapter 2, Josephus tells of the capture of Simon, son of Gioras, when he tried to escape by hiding in a hidden cavern and then coming out of the ground where the temple had been. I think that Josephus describes this metaphorically in a way that alludes to the resurrection of the dead, because it says that Simon "appeared out of the ground", so that he astonished those who saw them, and it refers to "This rise of his out of the ground". This image reminds me of Daniel 12:2 ("And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shamе and everlasting contempt.")

It is also reminiscent of this:

1 Samuel 28:11-14 (ESV) Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” He said, “Bring up Samuel for me.” When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul.” The king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a god coming up out of the earth.” He said to her, “What is his appearance?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe.” And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage.

As to severity of punishment, I leave that to God. Our flesh says those who do more or do worse should be punished more harshly. And my personal belief is that God will do so. However the ultimate sin was to hand God Himself on that cross, and for that we are all guilty. So how much more deserving is say Hitler of harsh punishment than a mild mannered old woman who never harmed anyone but who did not repent? Not a decision I want to make.

Dan C

For Question 7, Sure, the example from the Witch of Endor story fits.

Josephus is not actually saying that someone who does worse should be punished more, but rather that Justice inflicts on sinners a more severe punishment when they imagined that they avoided punishment because they weren't punished immediately. So if someone steals 20 dollars from a bank and is only caught 10 years later, then what does Justice require? He seems to be saying it would impose a harsher punishment. But how so?

Maybe this is because the person thought that they got away and getting caught and punished feels even worse because they spent all that time thinking that they were free?

Or maybe someone who has had the $20 for 10 years should pay interest on the $20?

Or maybe Josephus has in mind the fact that some people die thinking that they got away with their sins, but then in the next life God holds them to account, and this is even worse because it involves the Day of Judgment?

But on the other hand, is this all really what Justice should require? Lots of times there is a Statute of Limitations, although there isn't one for murder.

Someone gave me a suggestion that it was using a literary device called a "Conceit". Here is a definition: "Conceit is an extended metaphor that uses striking or unusual imagery to make the reader re-examine the subject." ("Why More Authors Should Harness The Power Of Conceit", March 9, 2015 by Robert Wood)

Banks require interests on loans, the IRS levies interest on late payments, late fees are common with libraries and other institutions, the US Federal court system has an interest payment system on fines.

"In general.--The defendant shall pay interest on any fine or restitution of more than $2,500, unless the fine is paid in full before the fifteenth day after the date of the judgment." 18 USCA Section 3612

I guess you could say that justice requires payment with interest, but whether this means that the penalty is more or no less severe than initial payment seems arbitrary, because the worth of the same amount of money owned decreases over time. 1$ is worth more to you today than 20 years from now because you could invest the $1 now and earn more for later.

[alon]

Sept 25, 2019 21:11:14 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Sept 25, 2019 20:18:59 GMT -8 alon said:

I’d say it is inferred, since as you say the 3rd Temple is different. As to Daniel’s prophecy, it is like most prophecy in that it is vague enough to be applied to more than one time/place/event. This is due in large part to the Hebrew understanding of time being alinear; it is in their view a spiral wherein events can be linked and often repeat. 

I think maybe you meant Ezekiel's prophecy there.

Thanks for the correction. I am running on little to no sleep these days, so it probably won't be the last. Also I will have to get to your questions when I can. I try to be timely, but I have actually fell asleep at the keyboard so hard I cracked the plastic with my forehead more than once. Most of the time though I go down slow and get a much needed "power nap!"

Dan

[alon]

Sept 25, 2019 21:38:03 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Sept 25, 2019 20:18:59 GMT -8 alon said:

*Square corners.

You mean the corners have right angles or that they are actual squares themselves? I think you mean the former.

LOL, this is getting to be like the amillineal thread!

Square as in 90 degrees- so right angles is correct.

Dan (oy vavoy) C

[rakovsky]

I am still stuck on Question 2A (Why would the Lord desire the defeat and slaughter of Japha and other rebellious cities?) I feel that we addressed all the other 7 main Questions.

Rome was perhaps the strongest empire in the world at that time. To start a war with them would need a good reason morally. I get that you don't have a positive view of Hellenistic Jews visiting the Courtyard, but it would be helpful to be more specific what the ritual Temple problem was with the Hellenists if that is the reason for the revolt. I don't believe that they were they going into the Holy of Holies while uncircumcized or bringing in swine. Archeologists found a sign from that period banning gentiles from the Temple area, IIRC.

You can make the argument that the Jews had the right to revolt in order to achieve national sovereignty since today people often believe that every nationality in the world has that right. But this seems like a tough issue really. Are we going to say that God is going to be on the side of the Native Americans or Puerto Ricans or Australian Aborigines if they revolt against the non-native societies (The US and Australia) that rule their land? I don't think so. The wars with the Native Americans devastated the natives' societies in the 19th Century. They would need a good reason to engage in wars that caused so much destruction for them. Maybe the Native Americans had an excuse. They could say that the European settlers aimed to take control of the Natives' land and eventually move out the tribes onto Reservations. But the Roman empire in the mid-First Century wasn't banning Judaism. At most there was some pressure to violate the commandments, like one procurator's attempt to bring images to the Temple, which the Jews successfully resisted.

[alon]

Sept 27, 2019 17:31:16 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

I am still stuck on Question 2A (Why would the Lord desire the defeat and slaughter of Japha and other rebellious cities?) I feel that we addressed all the other 7 main Questions.

Rome was perhaps the strongest empire in the world at that time. To start a war with them would need a good reason morally. I get that you don't have a positive view of Hellenistic Jews visiting the Courtyard, but it would be helpful to be more specific what the ritual Temple problem was with the Hellenists if that is the reason for the revolt. I don't believe that they were they going into the Holy of Holies while uncircumcized or bringing in swine. Archeologists found a sign from that period banning gentiles from the Temple area, IIRC.

You can make the argument that the Jews had the right to revolt in order to achieve national sovereignty since today people often believe that every nationality in the world has that right. But this seems like a tough issue really. Are we going to say that God is going to be on the side of the Native Americans or Puerto Ricans or Australian Aborigines if they revolt against the non-native societies (The US and Australia) that rule their land? I don't think so. The wars with the Native Americans devastated the natives' societies in the 19th Century. They would need a good reason to engage in wars that caused so much destruction for them. Maybe the Native Americans had an excuse. They could say that the European settlers aimed to take control of the Natives' land and eventually move out the tribes onto Reservations. But the Roman empire in the mid-First Century wasn't banning Judaism. At most there was some pressure to violate the commandments, like one procurator's attempt to bring images to the Temple, which the Jews successfully resisted.

There is a huge difference in those other cultures you speak of- actually in all other cultures- and Judaism. The Jews were/are God's people, and they were forbidden to intermarry thus polluting their lineage. Not just genetically, though this on a massive scale could destroy the nation. But spiritually. They were kadosh, holy, set apart; and they were to remain that way! And that set apart condition extended to individual defilement as well. From encyclopedia online:

PURITY AND IMPURITY, RITUAL (Heb. וְטָהֳרָה טֻמְאָה, tumah ve-toharah), a symbolic system according to which a pure person or object is qualified for contact with the Temple and related sancta (holy objects and spaces) while an impure person or object is disqualified from such contact. Ritual impurity arises from physical substances and states associated with procreation and death, not in themselves sinful. Ritual impurities are in general permitted (if not unavoidable or obligatory) and in this they can be distinguished from moral impurities, which arise from prohibited acts. Both types of impurity are denoted by Hebrew terms of defilement (forms of tame) but context and associated terms indicate that different kinds of impurity are intended.

Ritual, or permitted, impurity is distinguished by the following features: (1) it is contagious, transferred from one person or object to another in a variety of ways, such as physical contact or sharing space within a covered area; (2) impurity contracted from a source of ritual impurity is impermanent and can be reduced and removed by some combination of ablutions, time, and/or the performance of specified rituals; (3) ritual impurity can defile sancta and must be kept separate from it. More severe forms of ritual impurity can also defile common (non-sacred) objects as well, and thus may require isolation or exclusion.

That's a fair explanation, and pretty concise. There are details left out, but for our purposes this will do. The terms tumah and tahara had to do more with ritual availability than anything. Translating them pure and impure is not very good. 

Mixing even minor variations in worship could get you killed, as with Nadab and Abihu when they brought strange fire before the Lord. And Hellenized Jews with their Greek ways were a major pollutant of the Temple worship.

As I already explained, if enough impurity built up on the Temple the Holy Presence might depart, with disastrous results for the nation. And even walking by, their garments brushing those of a Hellenized Jew would impart a degree of impurity. So this was a real problem.

Dan C