JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES, Books I-V, Adam to Samson (SOLVED)

[jimmie]

Oct 31, 2019 8:11:43 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.

1 Peter 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

I believe with this statement God places himself under obligation to fulfill every commandment that he has place upon humanity.

If I have no right to take an innocent life in order to be holy then God doesn't have the right to take an innocent life because he is holy.

[rakovsky]

Oct 31, 2019 8:47:11 GMT -8 jimmie said:

The only restriction on abortion by the courts is the child must at least be partially inside the mother when it is murdered.

JIMMIE,
Thank you for writing in. I welcome your replies to the questions in my threads!
To address what you wrote above, the NY Times article "What is Late Term Abortion?" says:

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, said that abortion should be allowed until the time a fetus could survive outside the womb, a point (known as viability) that medical science generally considers to be at about 24 weeks of pregnancy. The Court has also specified that abortion should be legal after viability in certain cases — if continuing the pregnancy would seriously threaten the woman’s life or health.

[rakovsky]

Oct 31, 2019 9:12:12 GMT -8 jimmie said:

Oct 31, 2019 8:11:43 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

1 Peter 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

I believe with this statement God places himself under obligation to fulfill every commandment that he has place upon humanity.

If I have no right to take an innocent life in order to be holy then God doesn't have the right to take an innocent life because he is holy.

Good point, Jimmie.

[alon]

Oct 31, 2019 8:47:11 GMT -8 jimmie said:

The only restriction on abortion by the courts is the child must at least be partially inside the mother when it is murdered.

It varies by state, but this is pretty much becoming the norm.

Dan C

[alon]

Oct 31, 2019 9:36:15 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Oct 31, 2019 8:47:11 GMT -8 jimmie said:

The only restriction on abortion by the courts is the child must at least be partially inside the mother when it is murdered.

JIMMIE,
Thank you for writing in. I welcome your replies to the questions in my threads!
To address what you wrote above, the NY Times article "What is Late Term Abortion?" says:

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, said that abortion should be allowed until the time a fetus could survive outside the womb, a point (known as viability) that medical science generally considers to be at about 24 weeks of pregnancy. The Court has also specified that abortion should be legal after viability in certain cases — if continuing the pregnancy would seriously threaten the woman’s life or health.

Some states now allow a healthy, fully delivered baby to be placed on a cold steel table and die of neglect. They call this child unviable. New York is I believe the latest to do this, as Gov. Cuomo just signed the law allowing it. At some point the abortion doctor will declare it unviable and they will begin the harvesting process. Honestly, the children sacrificed to Molech were more "humanely" killed!

Dan C

[rakovsky]

For Question 9, Sam Wells writes:

In the illuminations of the Speculum humanae salvationis (Mirror of Human Salvation), we see a typological reading of the story, as is typical of a speculum. Taking the lead from Judges 5:24, ‘most blessed of women be Jael,’ the scene is taken to prefigure the defeat of Satan through the nails of Christ’s cross. Though on a literal reading it is Christ’s body that receives these nails, what is destroyed as they are driven home is the power of sin. And this is an event that takes place, notably, at the Place of the Skull (Golgotha), so again our attention is directed to Sisera’s temples.

Dr. Claude Marriotini writes that Sisera violated the Kenite woman Yael's honor as a woman by staying in her tent and having her tell the soldiers that there was no man in her tent. He sees a connection to Mary:

The words about Jael in the Song of Deborah, “Most blessed of women be Jael, of tent-dwelling women most blessed” (Judges 5:24), indicate that Jael was regarded as a popular heroine in Israel, a woman who courageously accomplished what the army of Israel had not been able to accomplish.
...
Jael is called “most blessed of women.” These words seem to anticipate Elizabeth’s words to Mary: “Blessed are you among the women” (Luke 1:42). In response, Mary sang a song, the Magnificat, a song that evokes God’s victory against Sisera:

He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away. He has helped his servant Israel (Luke 1:51-54).

The Beginning and End blog has a helpful article's discussion, "Jael the Assassin: Foreshadow of Jesus' Victory over Satan and the Antichrist", on Biblical prefigurements. The blog article quotes:

Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

Hosea 12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines a ‘similitude’ as: 1. Likeness; resemblance; likeness in nature, qualities of appearance; as similitude of substance.

The article notes that the battle with Sisera were by the waters of Megiddo, so it theorizes that the battle prefigures Armageddon. It notes:

After Barak showed a lack of faith in God’s plan, the Prophetess Deborah shared God’s proclamation that: “the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” – Judges 4:9. After Adam and Eve showed a lack of faith and sinned in the Garden of Eden, The Lord declared that Satan would be defeated by “the seed of the woman..”
...
Not only did God proclaim that the seed of the woman would destroy Satan, He said the way it would happen: the Messiah would “bruise” or crush (which is the nature of the Hebrew word in this verse) the head of the serpent to destroy him. This is exactly how Jael killed Sisera, by driving the tent nail through both of his temples, crushing his head. In Revelation Chapter 13, we are told that the Antichrist will also have a mortal wound on his head...
The Antichrist will have a literal deadly wound to his head. ...
And just as Jael took the nail and smashed it through the temples of Sisera, crushing his head, so too was the cross, literally driven into the “place of the skull” and with it the victory was won by the risen Savior.

In the description for Julie Walsh's book The Cross and the Tent Peg, it says: "Walsh delves deep into this oft-overlooked chronicle to detail twelve striking similarities connecting this gruesome murder to the crucifixion narrative, thus casting both in a new light."
I wonder what the 12 similarities are.


In From Allegory to Morality, Colleen Conway writes, " The chapter begins with discussion of allegorical interpretations of Jael and Sisera in the context of the medieval church. There Jael functions as a type of Mary, with her tent peg prefiguring the nails of the cross that defeat the devil. Her foreign status serves her well in the context, as she represents the Gentile church."

[alon]

Oct 31, 2019 11:03:35 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 9, Sam Wells writes:

In the illuminations of the Speculum humanae salvationis (Mirror of Human Salvation), we see a typological reading of the story, as is typical of a speculum. Taking the lead from Judges 5:24, ‘most blessed of women be Jael,’ the scene is taken to prefigure the defeat of Satan through the nails of Christ’s cross. Though on a literal reading it is Christ’s body that receives these nails, what is destroyed as they are driven home is the power of sin. And this is an event that takes place, notably, at the Place of the Skull (Golgotha), so again our attention is directed to Sisera’s temples.

Dr. Claude Marriotini writes that Sisera violated the Kenite woman Yael's honor as a woman by staying in her tent and having her tell the soldiers that there was no man in her tent. Most definitely.

He sees a connection to Mary:

The words about Jael in the Song of Deborah, “Most blessed of women be Jael, of tent-dwelling women most blessed” (Judges 5:24), indicate that Jael was regarded as a popular heroine in Israel, a woman who courageously accomplished what the army of Israel had not been able to accomplish.
...
Jael is called “most blessed of women.” These words seem to anticipate Elizabeth’s words to Mary: “Blessed are you among the women” (Luke 1:42). In response, Mary sang a song, the Magnificat, a song that evokes God’s victory against Sisera:

He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away. He has helped his servant Israel (Luke 1:51-54).

The Beginning and End blog has a helpful article's discussion, "Jael the Assassin: Foreshadow of Jesus' Victory over Satan and the Antichrist", on Biblical prefigurements. The blog article quotes:

Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. As true today as when it was spoken.

Hosea 12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines a ‘similitude’ as: 1. Likeness; resemblance; likeness in nature, qualities of appearance; as similitude of substance.

The article notes that the battle with Sisera were by the waters of Megiddo, so it theorizes that the battle prefigures Armageddon. It notes:

After Barak showed a lack of faith in God’s plan, the Prophetess Deborah shared God’s proclamation that: “the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” – Judges 4:9. After Adam and Eve showed a lack of faith and sinned in the Garden of Eden, The Lord declared that Satan would be defeated by “the seed of the woman..”
...
Not only did God proclaim that the seed of the woman would destroy Satan, He said the way it would happen: the Messiah would “bruise” or crush (which is the nature of the Hebrew word in this verse) the head of the serpent to destroy him. This is exactly how Jael killed Sisera, by driving the tent nail through both of his temples, crushing his head. In Revelation Chapter 13, we are told that the Antichrist will also have a mortal wound on his head...
The Antichrist will have a literal deadly wound to his head. ...
And just as Jael took the nail and smashed it through the temples of Sisera, crushing his head, so too was the cross, literally driven into the “place of the skull” and with it the victory was won by the risen Savior.

All the above is very possible, as the Bible is an interwoven and very intricate tapestry. I Hebrew the letter 'ו' vav can be either a nail or a peg, so I like the imagery of the nails used in the Crucifixion (which were more like spikes) and the tent peg, the crushing of the serpent's head, the skulls; all of it.

Have you read the deuterocanonical book of Judith? It has a very similar story, except she cuts off Holefrens (sp?) head with his own sword. Growing up, whenever we killed a rattlesnake we'd place our foot on the head so it couldn't strike. Even dead and with a damaged head if you touched the tail to harvest the rattles it would reflexively and accurately strike. So we'd step on the head, cut it off, then bury it so no one else would accidentally be bitten. Then standing on the bloody end, we'd take the rattles because even decapitated it would strike and hit you, and who needs snake blood on them? Then we'd feed the body to the chickens. So I can visualize the same typology with Judith, and the sword being the spikes. Her taking the head back with her and leaving the body to whatever fate has for it. 


In the description for Julie Walsh's book The Cross and the Tent Peg, it says: "Walsh delves deep into this oft-overlooked chronicle to detail twelve striking similarities connecting this gruesome murder to the crucifixion narrative, thus casting both in a new light."
I wonder what the 12 similarities are.
I guess you'll have to read the book. 

In From Allegory to Morality, Colleen Conway writes, " The chapter begins with discussion of allegorical interpretations of Jael and Sisera in the context of the medieval church. There Jael functions as a type of Mary, with her tent peg prefiguring the nails of the cross that defeat the devil. Her foreign status serves her well in the context, as she represents the Gentile church."
Well, there had to be something I'd disagree with. And there it is!

Biblically there are 2 types of people, Jews and the goyim, or nations, pagans, more often called Gentiles. Jews were/are God's people, goyim were/are not. Saved and unsaved. Even most Christian doctrine (I don't know about EO doctrine) says when you are saved you are grafted into Israel. Then they put that in a box, shelve it and go on to call themselves the "Gentile Church," and all too often to act like it! Salvation is the same today as in the "OT." By grace, through faith, you join Israel and worship El Elohe Yisroel and Him alone! So if you are part of a "Gentile Chuch," you have a HUGE problem! You are by yoour own words a pagan, unwashed and unsaved.

Reread Acts. Gentiles were brought into the sect of the Nazarenes and taught God's ways. Read the church fathers and you'll see that the Gentiles also made themselves a church which they structured as they wanted, remaking God in their own image. You can't have it both ways. Either you worship God as He said, or you are lost.

Dan C

Note: rereading this, I should be more clear. I know a lot of Christians who I believe are saved. But they believe what they were taught, so they worship somewhat in error. Salvation is by grace through faith when we come to God, yielding our lives to Him. At what point do we lose salvation? I don't know. Many Messianics believe that once told of Messianic Judaism and you reject it, you are doomed. I have a problem with that. Once told the truth you are responsible, but lost? It is not for me to declare anyone lost! All I will say is what I always say: the farther you are from or Yeshua, the more danger you are in. And I'll add the more truth you know and reject, the more responsible you become and the more danger you are in. I know it is difficult to overcome those things we've been taught and to go against the majority. I'm just glad it is God saying who is and isn't saved. Shoot-fire, I have enough trouble just moderating a forum! 

[rakovsky]

You asked, "Have you read the deuterocanonical book of Judith? It has a very similar story, except she cuts off Holefrens (sp?) head with his own sword."
No, but I agree that there is major similarity in the story.

[rakovsky]

You asked:

At what point do we lose salvation? I don't know. Many Messianics believe that once told of Messianic Judaism and you reject it, you are doomed. I have a problem with that. Once told the truth you are responsible, but lost?

I think your answer about uncertainty is the same kind of thing that the EO Church would give.

Certainly if you rejected salvation directly and knowingly or by your actions you would lose it, like with apostasy.

If you were told the Truth but not in a very convincing way, then I heard a theory that it wouldn't count as a requirement that you must accept the information or be lost, etc..
So if some illiterate Hindus heard that the Jews' religious book predicted a God-man savior who would get killed and resurrect, and that followers of a rabbi said that this happened to their rabbi, without more information, this might not count.

[alon]

Oct 31, 2019 13:50:30 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

You asked, "Have you read the deuterocanonical book of Judith? It has a very similar story, except she cuts off Holefrens (sp?) head with his own sword."
No, but I agree that there is major similarity in the story.

You should. It's a good read, and sheds some light on Jewish customs- such as a Jew could eat with a Gentile as long as no idols are present and the Jew knows what's cooking and who's doin' it.

There isn't anything wrong in the book; nothing that contradicts either scripture or history. My understanding is it was left out because other books better explained the principles therein.

rakovsky said:
You asked:
At what point do we lose salvation? I don't know. Many Messianics believe that once told of Messianic Judaism and you reject it, you are doomed. I have a problem with that. Once told the truth you are responsible, but lost?
I think your answer about uncertainty is the same kind of thing that the EO Church would give.

Certainly if you rejected salvation directly and knowingly or by your actions you would lose it, like with apostasy.

If you were told the Truth but not in a very convincing way, then I heard a theory that it wouldn't count as a requirement that you must accept the information or be lost, etc..
So if some illiterate Hindus heard that the Jews' religious book predicted a God-man savior who would get killed and resurrect, and that followers of a rabbi said that this happened to their rabbi, without more information, this might not count.

LOL, I hope we explain things a little better than that! As to whether we convince you, that's between you and God. You ask me what I think, I tell you. And other than praying my part is done! 

Dan ( ) C

[rakovsky]

For Question 9, I see that there is a relationship with the virgin Mary and Yael because of how they are both called Blessed in adoration announcements.

The fact that Yael used a nail and mallet struck me as odd on its own and therefore maybe a special prefigurement. What the exegetes seem to do is line up the elements of Yael's story with the gospel, but not in a way that seems to me to be an orderly match. For example, while the nail defeated both Sisera and Hashatan, Mary didn't hit someone directly with a nail.

Originally what I perceived as prefigurement was how the Pentateuch described Israelite soldiers gouging holes with spikes, a Psalm had David say that that God gouged ears for him to hear God's words, and here in Judges, Yael, maybe a contraction of Yah and El, gouged holes in Sisera's temples like metaphorical ears with a spike. So the crucifixion nails are prefigured in the story as the spike gouging "ears" in Sisera. But maybe what I saw in the story as prefigurement was more random and coincidental than a real prefigurement.

But if the prefigurement in Yael's story is not orderly, then maybe one need not expect something orderly with the spike in the temples lining up with something in the gospels. The exegetes line it up with the cross in Golgotha, the skull.

[alon]

Oct 31, 2019 16:43:13 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 9, I see that there is a relationship with the virgin Mary and Yael because of how they are both called Blessed in adoration announcements.

The fact that Yael used a nail and mallet struck me as odd on its own and therefore maybe a special prefigurement. What the exegetes seem to do is line up the elements of Yael's story with the gospel, but not in a way that seems to me to be an orderly match. For example, while the nail defeated both Sisera and Hashatan, Mary didn't hit someone directly with a nail.

Originally what I perceived as prefigurement was how the Pentateuch described Israelite soldiers gouging holes with spikes, a Psalm had David say that that God gouged ears for him to hear God's words, and here in Judges, Yael, maybe a contraction of Yah and El, gouged holes in Sisera's temples like metaphorical ears with a spike. So the crucifixion nails are prefigured in the story as the spike gouging "ears" in Sisera. But maybe what I saw in the story as prefigurement was more random and coincidental than a real prefigurement.

But if the prefigurement in Yael's story is not orderly, then maybe one need not expect something orderly with the spike in the temples lining up with something in the gospels. The exegetes line it up with the cross in Golgotha, the skull.

They don't have to match up exactly to relate, though the closer they do match the beter the relationship and the more certain we are.

But think about 2 things for a moment:

1. The day Yeshua was conceived He was hung on that Cross. That was His destiny. So Mary in effect hung Him on that Cross herself, just by having Him.
2. We all, including Mary hung Yeshua on that Cross because of our sins. We all drove those spikes into His wrists, including Mary. I know the RC Church believes May too led a sinless life. I don't know about the EO Church, but there was only one sinless life on this earth and that was Yeshua. 

Dan C

[rakovsky]

Oct 31, 2019 17:33:02 GMT -8 alon said:

Oct 31, 2019 16:43:13 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

They don't have to match up exactly to relate, though the closer they do match the beter the relationship and the more certain we are.

But think about 2 things for a moment:

1. The day Yeshua was conceived He was hung on that Cross. That was His destiny. So Mary in effect hung Him on that Cross herself, just by having Him.
2. We all, including Mary hung Yeshua on that Cross because of our sins. We all drove those spikes into His wrists, including Mary. I know the RC Church believes May too led a sinless life. I don't know about the EO Church, but there was only one sinless life on this earth and that was Yeshua. 

Dan C

What you are saying here about prefigurement is spot on and an excellent explanation.
Earlier you wrote:

Even most Christian doctrine (I don't know about EO doctrine) says when you are saved you are grafted into Israel.

Yes, the EO Church would basically have that idea.
The OCA.org page called "The Sinlessness of Mary" says:

I can say, in short, that the Orthodox Church believes that Mary, as a human being, could indeed have sinned, but chose not to. In the Roman Catholic understanding, it seems that Mary, who according to Roman doctrine had been exempted from the guilt of original sin [the Orthodox do not accept that humans share the guilt of the first sin but, rather, only the consequences] before all eternity, and thus could not have sinned. This is where the complexity comes in on a number of levels and which puts your question beyond the scope of an email.

Jesus Christ is Mary’s Savior, as well as ours, as testified in her own statement in St Luke—the Magnificat—where she says, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” If Mary had been “sin-proofed,” so to speak, from all eternity, the Orthodox would argue as to why she would need a Savior.

I think that this description of the position on her sinlessness is a bit simplistic though, as the webpage itself notes. The EO position seems murkier on whether Mary ever sinned. The National Catholic Register notes:

a few early Eastern Fathers (Origen, Basil, and John Chrysostom) expressed a couple of doubts about Mary’s sinlessness. Origen thought that, during Christ’s Passion, the sword that pierced Mary’s soul was disbelief. Basil had the same notion. And John Chrysostom thought her guilty of ambition and pushiness in Matthew 12:46 .

Origen's status in the EO church is also murky. But Cyril of Alexandria is another EO Church father who thought she went "astray", as St. Cyril put it. So I think that the EO Church is not very dogmatic on that issue. So I think you can have either view on it in the EO Church.

Supposing that the TaNaKh's story of Yael has prefigurements of Christ, then I wonder how the piercing of the temples fits in particular. I took it as perhaps referring to making gentile nations hear God's Word, as Psalm 40:6 says about David,
"Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened (gouged out, dug out, כָּרִ֣יתָ). Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require."
This uses the same verb, karita or kara, as in Psalm 22, "they have pierced/gouged my arms and my legs", which the NT relates to the Crucifixion.
And the image of God digging out ears in Psalm 40 also seemed peculiar or strange, but less so if I took the story of Yael in that way.

But I didn't see other commentators sharing my own take. It doesn't mean that I am wrong, but makes me more doubtful that it is correct. Instead, they see it relating to the cross in Golgotha.

Maybe it is not something that I could get certainty on.

[alon]

Oct 31, 2019 22:11:39 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Oct 31, 2019 17:33:02 GMT -8 alon said:

They don't have to match up exactly to relate, though the closer they do match the beter the relationship and the more certain we are.

But think about 2 things for a moment:

1. The day Yeshua was conceived He was hung on that Cross. That was His destiny. So Mary in effect hung Him on that Cross herself, just by having Him.
2. We all, including Mary hung Yeshua on that Cross because of our sins. We all drove those spikes into His wrists, including Mary. I know the RC Church believes May too led a sinless life. I don't know about the EO Church, but there was only one sinless life on this earth and that was Yeshua. 

Dan C

What you are saying here about prefigurement is spot on and an excellent explanation.
Earlier you wrote:

Even most Christian doctrine (I don't know about EO doctrine) says when you are saved you are grafted into Israel.

Yes, the EO Church would basically have that idea.
The OCA.org page called "The Sinlessness of Mary" says:

I can say, in short, that the Orthodox Church believes that Mary, as a human being, could indeed have sinned, but chose not to. In the Roman Catholic understanding, it seems that Mary, who according to Roman doctrine had been exempted from the guilt of original sin [the Orthodox do not accept that humans share the guilt of the first sin but, rather, only the consequences] before all eternity, and thus could not have sinned. This is where the complexity comes in on a number of levels and which puts your question beyond the scope of an email.

Jesus Christ is Mary’s Savior, as well as ours, as testified in her own statement in St Luke—the Magnificat—where she says, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” If Mary had been “sin-proofed,” so to speak, from all eternity, the Orthodox would argue as to why she would need a Savior.

I think that this description of the position on her sinlessness is a bit simplistic though, as the webpage itself notes. The EO position seems murkier on whether Mary ever sinned. The National Catholic Register notes:

a few early Eastern Fathers (Origen, Basil, and John Chrysostom) expressed a couple of doubts about Mary’s sinlessness. Origen thought that, during Christ’s Passion, the sword that pierced Mary’s soul was disbelief. Basil had the same notion. And John Chrysostom thought her guilty of ambition and pushiness in Matthew 12:46 .

Origen's status in the EO church is also murky. But Cyril of Alexandria is another EO Church father who thought she went "astray", as St. Cyril put it. So I think that the EO Church is not very dogmatic on that issue. So I think you can have either view on it in the EO Church.

Supposing that the TaNaKh's story of Yael has prefigurements of Christ, then I wonder how the piercing of the temples fits in particular. I took it as perhaps referring to making gentile nations hear God's Word, as Psalm 40:6 says about David,
"Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened (gouged out, dug out, כָּרִ֣יתָ). Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require."
This uses the same verb, karita or kara, as in Psalm 22, "they have pierced/gouged my arms and my legs", which the NT relates to the Crucifixion.
And the image of God digging out ears in Psalm 40 also seemed peculiar or strange, but less so if I took the story of Yael in that way.

But I didn't see other commentators sharing my own take. It doesn't mean that I am wrong, but makes me more doubtful that it is correct. Instead, they see it relating to the cross in Golgotha.

Maybe it is not something that I could get certainty on.

Romans 3:23-24  (ESV) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

"All" have sinned; but we have to be careful of words such as "all." However as you point out, Yeshua was/is her savior, and she was justified by His grace, therefore we can only conclude that she did sin.

The status of many of the early church fathers waxed and waned throughout the 1st 7 ecumenical councils (325 to 787 CE). Christianity was far from homogenous, many preaching doctrines at odds with others, and these councils were efforts of both government and the church to standardize religion into one rue catholic (universal) church. One Eastern group was the first to pull out, then there was 1054 and ya'll schism'd anyhow. So even those who were at some point excommunicated, such as Marcion are still considered church fathers by us. Moreover, we judge their importance by the impact they had overall, and no other figure ever had near the ammount of influence as did Marcion! So the thing to ask yourself is, "How much influence did each of these men have? Were their views accepted? Were they later reversed? And even later were they reinstated?" Then you can gage their importance to your doctrine- which seems to be unclear in any event. But for your own edification, I'd go with biblical truth and not the opinions of groups of men who could never really agree anyhow. Usually those councils were settled by an overbearing king who had no business being involved in religious councils in the first place, but who wanted stability and control. Many of those doctrines were not agreed on or accepted by most of those present anyhow.

Dan C

[rakovsky]

May 8, 2019 19:31:22 GMT -8 alon said:

(Question 10) Does a Christology prophecy appear in Book V, when Josephus tells how the ruler, Gideon died, and Gideon's youngest son killed his own brothers, with only his brother Jotham escaping? Is the parable that Jotham gave to the people a prophetic reference to the crown of thorns?

I’d be careful of calling Josephus works prophecy. He’d know of the Hebraic symbolism, and he knew Yeshua wore a crown of thorns. Looking back and spinnimg a yarn is not prophecy, and Jo was no more a prophet than he was a historian.

Dan,
Let me be clearer about Question 10.
Josephus was retelling the Biblical stories of Jotham and of Jotham's parable, so I was considering whether Jotham or Jotham's parable prefigured Christ.

Ernest Hello, a modern RC theologian, in his book Studies in Saintship, finds it "remarkable" that the bramble, the Rhamnum in Latin, in Jotham's parable in Judges 9 was the same plant used in the crown of thorns. Whereas the bramble became king in Judges 9, the bramble wrote Christ's sovereignty in the Passion, Hello says.

The website "End Times: Darkness Descending" has a page about the crown of thorns, where it sees Jotham's parable as a prefigurement of the crown of thorns. It notes that in the parable, the bramble represented Abimelech, the bad ruler, so it theorizes that the bramble also represents the Antichrist, and that the crown of thorns will be replaced by a benevolent crown on Christ in the End Times. The page says in part:

The bramble bush is made into a crown of thorns and sits upon the head of Jesus Christ. In Jotham’s parable, the bramble was asked to become king over all the trees in the forest. At Calvary, that bramble bush was made into a crown to be worn by the King. Looking at it in perspective as it sat on the head of Christ in all of it’s , piercing the flesh, bringing the blood, it was indeed a lowly bramble bush. It was not a crown made out of olive wood, it was a crown made from a bramble bush. It was not a crown made of fig wood, it was made from a bramble bush. It was not a crown made out of grape vine, it was indeed a lowly bramble bush. In Jotham’s parable, when the bramble was invited to be their king, it replied, “If in truth, ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow…” (Judges 9:15). In prophetic fulfillment, one can see the savior of the souls of humanity hanging their in utter humility beneath the shadow of the bramble bush. One can see it exalted upon his head. One can watch as it draws his blood and one can hear his declarative agonizing question of … “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). It looked as if the bramble bush was triumphant and that the olive tree, the fig tree and the vine will be forever defeated. It looks as if that “Root of David,” that “Rod out of the stem of Jesse,” that great “Branch” was to be forever humiliated by that crown of a bramble bush. When the bramble bush answered the request of the other trees, it said, “… put your trust in my shadow, and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.” It did not say, “I will devour the olive tree.” It did not say that it will burn the fig tree, or the vine. It said, “I will devour the cedars of Lebanon.” Forty years later, a fire devoured the great cedars of Lebanon, just like the parable said it would. The fulfillment of that prophecy came when the Romans burned the Jewish Temple to the ground. The doors of the Temple were made out of cedar wood from Lebanon. The prophet Zechariah also predicted it …

“Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars” (Zechariah 11:1).

It looks like depending on how closely you see the TaNaKh prefiguring Christ, you could also see the parable as prefiguring the crown of thorns.

Alvin Johnson, in his essay "GREENSIGHT: THE ATAD - THE JUJUBE OR CHRIST'S THORN" cites Jotham's parable,

Finally all the trees said to the atad (thornbush), ‘Come and be our king.’
The atad (thornbush) said to the trees, ‘If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the atad (thornbush) and consume the cedars of Lebanon!’"

He notes that the atad appears again

in Psalm 58:9 where it was used as a tree for firewood in the home: "Before your pots can feel the heat of the atad (thorns) - whether they be green or dry - the wicked will be swept away."

He theorizes that the plant was the Jujube, an evergreen that catches fire quickly.

The Bible Plants site run by Old Dominion University theorizes that the plant in the parable was not actually the same as the one in the crown of thorns:

the thornbush in the parable of Jotham (Judges 9:15) is more likely to be Zizyphus spini-christi simply because of the setting in the hills near Shechem where this plant occurs and because of the stature of the plant as a "ruler."
...
Despite its Latin name, Z. spini-christi (literally, spine of Christ) is probably not the plant used in making the crown of thorns. Rather, the low growing very common shrub Sarcopoterium spinosum is a better choice. This shrub is abundant around Jerusalem because it is one of the most conspicuous elements of the degraded Mediterranean ecosystem in the mountains along the Rift Valley. Zizyphus spini-christi, on the other hand, is more frequent in drier sites and at lower elevations.

But anyway, since we are talking about typology, they don't have to literally be the same plant species for the prefigurement to work.

"ONE FOR ISRAEL (Messianic Jews In Israel)" has an article seeing an indirect relationship between the parable and the crown of thorns, in that thorns were part of the curse after the Fall in Genesis. It cites Isaiah 55,

“Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress;
instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle;
and it shall make a name for the LORD,
an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.”

It takes the view that God would transform people who were like thorns into being like cypresses, although I read the verse in Isaiah as more likely teaching replacement instead of transformation.

William Gifford, in the Quarterly Review, however, noted that Gretser theorized that the Passion consecrated the thorn as a noble plant that others could take shade under. This is like the idea that the Passion consecrated the Cross.

The Carpenter's View website has an article that shares the view of One for Israel that there was an indirect link, in that Jotham's parable was a curse in that it used a thorn, which was a curse under Genesis 3, and:

After being mocked, beaten and spat upon by the Roman soldiers, Jesus was crowned with thorns and this highlighted that His suffering and death were a curse. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.” (Hebrews 3:13) When our Lord was crowned with a crown of thorns, His torturers unknowingly punished Him with a symbol fitting of the suffering Messiah.

Julian Evans writes in "The Cross and the Crown",

If it is this plant the soldiers twisted to inflict pain and bleeding, then we have a twist indeed.

Did the Romans collude with the Jews so that the only earthly crown Jesus wore was the very symbol of bad kingship in Judges? And was that yet another humiliation and insult heaped on Christ?

So it's a common idea that Jotham's parable was prefiguring the crown of thorns.
To me, Jotham being the only one of his full siblings to escape being killed at Joshua's large stone by Abimelech, and the preaching his parable from Mount Gerizim reminds me of Christ at Golgotha and maybe at the Sermon on the Mount. Specifically I saw it in his escape, especially because he later gave a Christological prophecy about the thorns. But I can't find anyone else who writes of Jotham as being a prefigurement of Christ. So I am not sure about this. Maybe they would see him as one only in the sense that the rejected prophets served as prefigurements of Messiah.