|
|
Post by rakovsky on Nov 4, 2019 20:07:57 GMT -8
For Question 5, I think that it's hard to say with certainty whether Josephus was making Joseph's story into more of a prefigurement of Yeshua. One of the reasons is that Joseph's story in the TaNaKh is so closely resembling Yeshua's that it already is a Messianic prefigurement even before Josephus retold it. By changing the method of the baker's death into crucifixion, it seems that he made it even more so a Christological prefigurement, like apparently in his story of saving his three friends. But the alternative is that he simply retold it in a way that would be more understandable to a 1st century Greek/Roman audience. The Biblical method of executing the baker was apparently beheading him and putting up his body on display like on a pole, which was not actually the same as crucifixion.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Nov 5, 2019 8:29:08 GMT -8
For Question 4, I noticed that God had promised Jacob that his descendants would greatly multiply and in Genesis 31 told Jacob to go to his kindred (eg. Esau), but Jacob was dividing his forces and fleeing across the brook. So the angel was effectively stopping Jacob from continuing to flee against God's order.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 5, 2019 10:33:40 GMT -8
For Question 4, I noticed that God had promised Jacob that his descendants would greatly multiply and in Genesis 31 told Jacob to go to his kindred (eg. Esau), but Jacob was dividing his forces and fleeing across the brook. So the angel was effectively stopping Jacob from continuing to flee against God's order.
To my lord Esav לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂו l’adonai l’esav, כֹּה chol, ‘thus,’ אָמַר עַבְדְּךָ יַעֲקֹב amar avdecha Ya’akov, says your servant Jacob. He's speaking to Laban not as the one to whom the leadership of his fathers house was given, but as a subservient member of that house, the house of Isaac. Throughout this story Ya'akov instructs his malachim (messengers) to refer to him, their master as עַבְדְּךָ יַעֲקֹב avdecha Ya’akov, ‘your servant Jacob,’ and to Esav as לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂו l’adoni l’esav, ‘to my lord to Esav.’ (Note both the terms malachim/messengers, commonly interpreted angels, and adoni/my lord can be used of spirit beings or of men. But I digress.) He not only is attempting to ingratiate himself to Esav, but in many ways this restores to Esav what was taken. It sets things right between the brothers. To Ya'akov still belongs that part of the heritage that is the line of HaMoshiach. However to Esav now "oficially" goes what he had all along after Ya'akov fled, the double portion of the inheritance and leadership of the clan. This was not an effort at manipulation, trying to secure safe passage home. It was a ceremony of public repentance and reparation for the wrongs he’d done Esav.
Remember, your church was primarily formed after the decline and fall of Rome, in a time when Esav's of this world held sway. Much like before the flood, the strong absolutely dominated the weak. Warlords, kings, and emperors ruled with absolute authority and power. They even imposed their will on the venerated "church councils" which decided church doctrine. Is it any wonder they would see Ya'akov as a coward and an interloper? Many in the church hated women, and certainly these powerful rulers despised them, and women got what they wanted using their wiles. So too they despised Jacob, who had gotten the inheritance through deception. Also to have shown Jacob in a good light might have challenged the practice of primogeniture, the practice of the eldest being crowned when a leader dies. Due to catholic doctrines of Sacred Magesterium and infallibility of the church it is highly unlikely they will ever revisit or change their views here.
Fortunately, ignorance, when treated is not a terminal condition. We can look at this in the context of the time and culture in which it happened (as opposed to that of when it was interpreted and made church doctrine), and we can ask ourselves, "Would God have wanted such a man as the church describes in the line of His Messiah?" True, all the patriarchs, matriarchs, and even kings failed at times. And there were some shady characters in His lineage. BUT, HOWEVER, NONETHELESS, all repented, and in the end, like Peter after the thingy (male chicken- darn anti-cuss program) crowed they showed great courage in the service of God. There was only in all the history of mankind one perfect human life lived on earth, that of the Messiah, God made man Himself. But there has always been grace where there is true repentance. Part of that grace is to empower us to face what we must in His service. This is what the malach, who turned out to be God (as Yeshua?) Himself does for Ya'akov. After wrestling all night with God, facing Esav would have been a piece of cake! I mean, if that happened to me, I'd probably go to the middle of Teheran and yell "Allah is a demon and his prophet was a pig!" But since it hasn't happened to me, maybe I will just forgo that bit of silliness ... 
The point is, we need to look at this narrative in the light of its own time and culture, not that of the Dark and/or Middle Ages when most of church doctrine and interpretations were formalized. Ya'akov was an honorable man; in many ways the most honorable of all the patriarchs. To stigmatize him as a thief and a coward is to negate the teaching of many of his good character traits. And who, we must ask ourselves, might want us to do that?
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Nov 5, 2019 11:36:58 GMT -8
Remember, your church was primarily formed after the decline and fall of Rome, in a time when Esav's of this world held sway. Much like before the flood, the strong absolutely dominated the weak. Warlords, kings, and emperors ruled with absolute authority and power. They even imposed their will on the venerated "church councils" which decided church doctrine. Is it any wonder they would see Ya'akov as a coward and an interloper? Many in the church hated women, and certainly these powerful rulers despised them, and women got what they wanted using their wiles. So too they despised Jacob, who had gotten the inheritance through deception. Also to have shown Jacob in a good light might have challenged the practice of primogeniture, the practice of the eldest being crowned when a leader dies. Due to catholic doctrines of Sacred Magesterium and infallibility of the church it is highly unlikely they will ever revisit or change their views here.
...
To stigmatize him as a thief and a coward is to negate the teaching of many of his good character traits. And who, we must ask ourselves, might want us to do that?
To clarify, the writers whom I was citing were general Christians, probably Protestants. I wasn't specially looking for EO or RC writers. They might not be inclined to see Jacob as a coward because in the story, he wrestled with God. Rather, since the passages were also talking about his fear and how he prayed that he was unworthy due to dividing his forces, whereas God told him to return to Esau they might read into this that he was fleeing when he crossed the brook. At least, that is my reading of why he went across the brook alone. He wanted to be further away from what was happening, as part of his preparation to flee. I think that they did not really despise Jacob per se, because for instance in the first century or not long afterwards the Church in Egypt wrote the Testament of Jacob in which he is a positive protagonist. It seems more of an issue like the stories of Jonah, as well as David, where the characters have some character weaknesses or flaws but ultimately come out positive. In the case of Jonah his weakness or flaw was how he was scared of preaching to Nineveh, so he tried escaping on the ship. This fleeing would be like Jacob's fleeing, if you were to accept the analogy. Ultimately Jonah is seen as a good character, but one who initially had a weakness of fear and fleeing regarding his mission. Someone who hated Judaism and Christianity might want to stigmatize him with cowardice to negate his good traits, but I think that rather the story that these writers see is more about overcoming human failings than about making him overall a bad character. For a person to overcome failings and flaws, he has to have had them. The example you gave about Peter and the thingy was a good example of dealing with past failings, although of a different kind. Jacob's issue was more of fear and starting/preparing to flee when God gave him a command that he thought might put him in danger, whereas Peter's was more about lying against Messiah for self-protection. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 5, 2019 13:30:49 GMT -8
Remember, your church was primarily formed after the decline and fall of Rome, in a time when Esav's of this world held sway. Much like before the flood, the strong absolutely dominated the weak. Warlords, kings, and emperors ruled with absolute authority and power. They even imposed their will on the venerated "church councils" which decided church doctrine. Is it any wonder they would see Ya'akov as a coward and an interloper? Many in the church hated women, and certainly these powerful rulers despised them, and women got what they wanted using their wiles. So too they despised Jacob, who had gotten the inheritance through deception. Also to have shown Jacob in a good light might have challenged the practice of primogeniture, the practice of the eldest being crowned when a leader dies. Due to catholic doctrines of Sacred Magesterium and infallibility of the church it is highly unlikely they will ever revisit or change their views here.
...
To stigmatize him as a thief and a coward is to negate the teaching of many of his good character traits. And who, we must ask ourselves, might want us to do that?
To clarify, the writers whom I was citing were general Christians, probably Protestants. I wasn't specially looking for EO or RC writers. They might not be inclined to see Jacob as a coward because in the story, he wrestled with God. Rather, since the passages were also talking about his fear and how he prayed that he was unworthy due to dividing his forces, whereas God told him to return to Esau they might read into this that he was fleeing when he crossed the brook. At least, that is my reading of why he went across the brook alone. He wanted to be further away from what was happening, as part of his preparation to flee. I think that they did not really despise Jacob per se, because for instance in the first century or not long afterwards the Church in Egypt wrote the Testament of Jacob in which he is a positive protagonist. It seems more of an issue like the stories of Jonah, as well as David, where the characters have some character weaknesses or flaws but ultimately come out positive. In the case of Jonah his weakness or flaw was how he was scared of preaching to Nineveh, so he tried escaping on the ship. This fleeing would be like Jacob's fleeing, if you were to accept the analogy. Ultimately Jonah is seen as a good character, but one who initially had a weakness of fear and fleeing regarding his mission. Someone who hated Judaism and Christianity might want to stigmatize him with cowardice to negate his good traits, but I think that rather the story that these writers see is more about overcoming human failings than about making him overall a bad character. For a person to overcome failings and flaws, he has to have had them. The example you gave about Peter and the thingy was a good example of dealing with past failings, although of a different kind. Jacob's issue was more of fear and starting/preparing to flee when God gave him a command that he thought might put him in danger, whereas Peter's was more about lying against Messiah for self-protection.
The KJV says Jacob was a "plain man." Other translations say "Jacob had a quiet temperament, preferring to stay at home; Jacob was content to stay at home among the tents; Jacob was a quiet sort who liked to stay at home."
The Wycliff Bible translates it "And when they were waxen, Esau was a man knowing of hunting, and a man (who was) an earth-tiller; forsooth Jacob was a simple man, and dwelled in tabernacles. (And when they were fully grown, Esau was a man knowledgeable about hunting, and who worked the soil, or was a farmer; and Jacob was a simple man, who stayed at home in the tents.)"
In all these what they have in common is Esav is described in positive tones and words. He's a man's man; he hunts, he works, he's knowledgeable. What a guy! But poor Ya'akov, he's a mamma's boy, preferring to meekly stay home, idling away his time in the tents. In fact, while it says the boys had grown up, usually they are pictured and taught as young adolescents. But they were already men when the story of Esav selling his birthright begins. So Ya'akov stayed in the tents with the women while Esav worked. That's why Ya'akov learned to be cunning like women were.
But what does the Bible really say about Ya'akov? That word describing Ya'akov is תָּם tâm; from H8552; complete; usually (morally) pious; specifically, gentle, dear:—coupled together, perfect, plain, undefiled, upright. These are all positive traits; the kinds of things we look for in leaders. And it would have been the job of he oldest to welcome visitors and make sure they were shown the proper hospitality. He didn't stay there to avoid work. There was plenty to do in and around camp. No, he was making sure someone kept those responsibilities Esav should have been doing! So from our translations to teachings to art, we are given an undeserved negative impression of Ya'akov from the start. And this is reinforced when he tricks his young brother into selling his birthright, and again when he tricks his father and steals the birthright. Jacob the frail, somewhat fey mamma's boy, the cunning trickster, thief, and liar. This is how he is commonly portrayed in art, literature, Bible translations, and teachings. But how many times has anyone in your church ever looked up the word תָּם tâm and taught what he was really like? Were you ever left with the impression they were just boys when Esav sold his birthright?
Ya'akov is typically portrayed very negatively in Christianity as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Nov 5, 2019 15:14:20 GMT -8
"Sacred Magesterium and infallibility of the church" are RC doctrines. I don't know how the EO church views them officially, however every church and almost every pastor or priest pretty much carries this view, even if they don't "officially" call it that. For the EOs, it is just the Bible and Ecumenical Councils that are maybe infallible. The infallibility debate is more of a RC thing. To say that the Bible was infallible, the EOs would have to speak of it in those terms, which they typically don't. But if I were to characterize the EO view, I would say tentatively that they consider the Bible and the basics of the 7 Ecumenical Councils to be infallible. But some EO theologians would disagree, because for example maybe there are ways in which the Bible might be fallible, according to them. What you said above is fine, except that you don't have to look at his staying at home so negatively. OK, maybe he learned to be cunning from his Mom, but overall he was probably not bad. I didn't think of him as essentially bad in his childhood, whatever his flaws. Sometimes they will look up his name. Since he sold his birthright, my impression, shallow as it may be, was that it would have tended to have happened before Jacob become a middle aged adult. But it was not a strong opinion from me. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 5, 2019 17:20:35 GMT -8
rakovsky said: What you said above is fine, except that you don't have to look at his staying at home so negatively. OK, maybe he learned to be cunning from his Mom, but overall he was probably not bad. I didn't think of him as essentially bad in his childhood, whatever his flaws.
alon said: But what does the Bible really say about Ya'akov? That word describing Ya'akov is תָּם tâm; from H8552; complete; usually (morally) pious; specifically, gentle, dear:—coupled together, perfect, plain, undefiled, upright. These are all positive traits; the kinds of things we look for in leaders. And it would have been the job of he oldest to welcome visitors and make sure they were shown the proper hospitality. He didn't stay there to avoid work. There was plenty to do in and around camp. No, he was making sure someone kept those responsibilities Esav should have been doing! So from our translations to teachings to art, we are given an undeserved negative impression of Ya'akov from the start. And this is reinforced when he tricks his young brother into selling his birthright, and again when he tricks his father and steals the birthright. Jacob the frail, somewhat fey mamma's boy, the cunning trickster, thief, and liar. This is how he is commonly portrayed in art, literature, Bible translations, and teachings. But how many times has anyone in your church ever looked up the word תָּם tâm and taught what he was really like? Were you ever left with the impression they were just boys when Esav sold his birthright?
Ya'akov is typically portrayed very negatively in Christianity as a whole.
rakovsky said: Sometimes they will look up his name. Since he sold his birthright, my impression, shallow as it may be, was that it would have tended to have happened before Jacob become a middle aged adult. But it was not a strong opinion from me. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Nov 5, 2019 21:54:37 GMT -8
For Question 7 (D) Can one reconcile Moses' instructions on killing Israel's enemies with Christian principles of mercy towards one's enemies?, I think that they are two different kinds of things. It is like apples and oranges. The first is part of God's judgment on sinners or on enemies, whereas the second is about mercy. You can have an order to exact revenge, punishment, or some other kind of attack, but then under principles of mercy, you can in some way soften the attack that is due. It's like Yeshua's calling "Forgive them for they know not what they do." God could impose a full punishment, or He could soften it or mitigate it with forgiveness. The instructions themselves might be not in conflict with the principle of mercy, since the instructions are part of the concept of judgment and punishment. If the instructions were excessive, then they would be in conflict with fairness, and maybe with principles of mercy. Under principles of mercy, one would not impose an excessive punishment. I guess that in an earlier post I tried to address ways that the punishment was not excessive and we also discussed instances of forgiveness like in the case of Rahab's family. One of the main issues that I noticed was that there are other such cases in the  , like in the story of the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, where almost all of the sinning communities were destroyed or killed in the story. And it focuses alot on the subjects' sinfulness. Another tact I see in addressing the issue of fairness is that the orders can be hyperbole or that it was meant to drive them out. Maybe my thoughts on this are not organized very well, but the main issues underneath the question seem to be fairness and forgiving people who repent. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Nov 6, 2019 13:30:13 GMT -8
Dan, I did cleanup because there were so many questions and replies and made a new thread for the questions numbered 12-24, from David to Samson. theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4774/josephus-antiquities-books-david-solomonCan I ask if you are able to move your replies to Questions 12 to 24 from here on Page 1 (http://theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4668/josephus-antiquities-books-adam-samson) to the new thread? If you can't, it's OK. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 6, 2019 13:48:30 GMT -8
For Question 7 (D) Can one reconcile Moses' instructions on killing Israel's enemies with Christian principles of mercy towards one's enemies?, I think that they are two different kinds of things. It is like apples and oranges. The first is part of God's judgment on sinners or on enemies, whereas the second is about mercy. You can have an order to exact revenge, punishment, or some other kind of attack, but then under principles of mercy, you can in some way soften the attack that is due. It's like Yeshua's calling "Forgive them for they know not what they do." God could impose a full punishment, or He could soften it or mitigate it with forgiveness. The instructions themselves might be not in conflict with the principle of mercy, since the instructions are part of the concept of judgment and punishment. If the instructions were excessive, then they would be in conflict with fairness, and maybe with principles of mercy. Under principles of mercy, one would not impose an excessive punishment. I guess that in an earlier post I tried to address ways that the punishment was not excessive and we also discussed instances of forgiveness like in the case of Rahab's family. One of the main issues that I noticed was that there are other such cases in the , like in the story of the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, where almost all of the sinning communities were destroyed or killed in the story. And it focuses alot on the subjects' sinfulness. Another tact I see in addressing the issue of fairness is that the orders can be hyperbole or that it was meant to drive them out. Maybe my thoughts on this are not organized very well, but the main issues underneath the question seem to be fairness and forgiving people who repent.
We try to be clear as well as absolute when defining any principle or instruction or law. But life is not so clean. As we've discussed, even with laws there is a hierarchy, because they can come into conflict. Yeshua gave the example of your ox falls into a ditch on Shabbat, and you get him out. In deciding whether to rest the day and hope the beast survives until evening. But it may injre itself badly in trying to escape on its own and have to be put down. Meanwhile, it would suffer. Now that ox is one of the things your family depends on to survive, so the consequences are far reaching. The higher mitzvah in this case is get it out as soon as possible, even if this means breaking Shabbat. Why? Mercy- Jews don't leave animals to suffer. Practical considerations- you care and provide for your family. These are mitigating factors. Life is just not usually that clear cut, and we must learn to use those mitigating factors in a Godly way. Good people tend towards mercy, and that is ok. But some people just do not deserve mercy. Some, if left alive will always try to harm others.This may be by physically harming them, or by treasonous acts, or by bringing ib false worship, or even by polluting the blood lines.
That brings up another point. We don't (or shouldn't) kill people for polluting bloodlines. But when God says kill them for this reason it is incumbent on us to do so. He operates on a much higher plane than us. He made the genetic code, so He can see consequences there our best scientists could not. He also knows the harts of all men, we don't. And He knows the beginning from the end, whereas we know only what He tells us. God does not just wantonly kill His creation, and for some reason He placed a high value on human life. So we trust Him that there were reasons, and those people were not blameless. Even the infants, who were much better off dieing while without sin than growing to be as their parents. Trust God. He knows what He's doing, and why.
And if someone comes to you and says he hears from God, you have the mental acuity and the information needed to judge him. You know the laws, instructions, and biblical principles you need to make an informed decision about him. Likewise, you have what you need to deal with situations as they arise in your life as to which law do I keep and which do I violate. What principle is more important here? WHo is right and who wrong in a debate. Let His word, the whole word be our guide and you'll do well.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Nov 6, 2019 20:29:32 GMT -8
For Question 8 about reviling Elohim and the ruler, I wrote that it looks like Jezebel's instructions against Naboth helps to confirm your interpretation that Elohim here means God. She orders, "And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die."
The translations give her phrase "Elohim and the king" as "God and the king". But now, since it turns out that she was a Polytheist who supported the cult of Baal and Asherah and downplayed YHWH worship, it seems to me more logical that she would mean "the gods". It's kind of a weird issue. The Bible is seemingly presenting the story as if she invoked the 's ban in Exodus against cursing God (Elohim), but coming from her, it would seem like she would more likely accuse someone for cursing "the gods". |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Nov 6, 2019 22:30:46 GMT -8
Question 10 comes from the events in Judges 9.
The Plain Reading of the story is clear, but allegorical meanings or deeper mystical or spiritual or prophetic ones are so common in Tanakh, I am curious how Jotham's story might have a deeper such meaning. I wasn't able to find writers giving deeper meanings to this story.
If I had to read this passage Christologically, it would be in some kind of inverse form. Abimelech "communing" with his full brothers would be like the Last Supper, the 70 pieces of silver would be like the pieces of silver given to Judas, the 70 victims would be like 70 apostles who were Jesus' "brothers". The 70 brothers' killing and Jotham's escape would be an inversion of Christ's killing and the apostles' escape at Gethsemane. The killing on the stone could be pointing to the Crucifixion on Golgotha, or if it meant that they were knocked down from the stone and killed, then it could point to the killing of Yeshua's brother James, who in early traditions was knocked down from a wall and stoned.
Worship in the Northern Kingdom, which focused on Mount Gerizim where Jotham made his speech was a kind of inverted or deviant version of Judah's worship. Worship was supposed to be at the Temple, but the Northern Kingdom focused on the mountain. So maybe the story is a kind of inverted prefigurement.
In an inverted prefigurement, maybe his preaching on the mount about the Israelites' future after his escape represents an inversion of Yeshua's Great Commission on the mount in Matthew's Gospel.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 7, 2019 4:46:48 GMT -8
For Question 8 about reviling Elohim and the ruler, I wrote that it looks like Jezebel's instructions against Naboth helps to confirm your interpretation that Elohim here means God. She orders, "And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die."
The translations give her phrase "Elohim and the king" as "God and the king". But now, since it turns out that she was a Polytheist who supported the cult of Baal and Asherah and downplayed YHWH worship, it seems to me more logical that she would mean "the gods". It's kind of a weird issue. The Bible is seemingly presenting the story as if she invoked the 's ban in Exodus against cursing God (Elohim), but coming from her, it would seem like she would more likely accuse someone for cursing "the gods".
But Ex 22:25 says "“You might lend money to one of my people who is poor. Then do not treat him as a moneylender would. Charge him nothing for using your money."
Regardless, one thing you must realize, and this makes verses like 28 difficult to translate, but everyone then lived in a world of many gods. They were everywhere. Now to a Jew, there was One God above all others who could never be deposed. To pagan Rome, who Josephus wrote for, their gods rose and fell just like earthly kings. Often one of the gods own sons would rise up and depose him. And the only ay you knew whose god was preeminent was that was the one winning battles. However what Josephus might be referring to was you did not go into another town or region and speak against their gods. They took that very personally, and typically did not wait for divine retribution, but would kill you themselves.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Nov 7, 2019 8:14:44 GMT -8
[I thought that question was about Ex 22:28: But Ex 22:25 says "“You might lend money to one of my people who is poor. Then do not treat him as a moneylender would. Charge him nothing for using your money."
Regardless, one thing you must realize, and this makes verses like 28 difficult to translate, but everyone then lived in a world of many gods. They were everywhere. Now to a Jew, there was One God above all others who could never be deposed. To pagan Rome, who Josephus wrote for, their gods rose and fell just like earthly kings. Often one of the gods own sons would rise up and depose him. And the only ay you knew whose god was preeminent was that was the one winning battles. However what Josephus might be referring to was you did not go into another town or region and speak against their gods. They took that very personally, and typically did not wait for divine retribution, but would kill you themselves.
Dan C
Yes, I meant Exodus 22:28, not verse 25. That was a typo by me. It's true that Josephus was writing for a Roman audience, but in interpreting Elohim as gods here, he was following an earlier way of interpreting Elohim for this verse, one in the Septuagint and Philo, and thus focused on Alexandria, Egypt. Loeb's note says: |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 7, 2019 20:29:06 GMT -8
Question 10 comes from the events in Judges 9. The Plain Reading of the story is clear, but allegorical meanings or deeper mystical or spiritual or prophetic ones are so common in Tanakh, I am curious how Jotham's story might have a deeper such meaning. I wasn't able to find writers giving deeper meanings to this story. If I had to read this passage Christologically, it would be in some kind of inverse form. Abimelech "communing" with his full brothers would be like the Last Supper, the 70 pieces of silver would be like the pieces of silver given to Judas, the 70 victims would be like 70 apostles who were Jesus' "brothers". The 70 brothers' killing and Jotham's escape would be an inversion of Christ's killing and the apostles' escape at Gethsemane. The killing on the stone could be pointing to the Crucifixion on Golgotha, or if it meant that they were knocked down from the stone and killed, then it could point to the killing of Yeshua's brother James, who in early traditions was knocked down from a wall and stoned. Worship in the Northern Kingdom, which focused on Mount Gerizim where Jotham made his speech was a kind of inverted or deviant version of Judah's worship. Worship was supposed to be at the Temple, but the Northern Kingdom focused on the mountain. So maybe the story is a kind of inverted prefigurement. In an inverted prefigurement, maybe his preaching on the mount about the Israelites' future after his escape represents an inversion of Yeshua's Great Commission on the mount in Matthew's Gospel.
Dan C |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
