JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES Books VI-VIII, David - Solomon, SOLVED

[rakovsky]

Nov 9, 2019 13:31:46 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 6, 2019 13:26:28 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

(Question 9) How common was the idea in ancient Judaism that after death, "no one can ever return to learn what is happening among the living"?

Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 (ESV)  But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion.  For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.  Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.

People like to quote Eccl 9.5, but they often lose sight of the context. This talks about the corporeal existence of all men. “All” however doesn’t necessarily mean every single man. In Hebrew it was common to say “all” meaning most, or all you know of, or even just all of us. It’s the same in most languages even today. But biblically when it says “all the world was taxed,” did that mean the Armenians, Parthians, or Arabians were being taxed? They were known as they bordered the empire just east of Israel. No, all meant all the Romans held, not he rest.

Likewise we must use common sense when talking about things like death and a temporary resurrection in this life. “Forever” in Ecc 6 doesn’t mean the speaker denied the resurrection or the afterlife. He was talking in terms of this life. And even so it doesn’t mean there cannot be incidents where the dead are brought back. It’s just those are so rare they are unremarkable in the context of what is being said.

I’ve heard there were those Jews who held the extreme view here, and that is not surprising. The Sadducees didn’t even believe in the resurrection. But I don’t think either view (no one back from dead nor no resurrection) was ever the predominant one.

For Question 9, you actually chose a very relevant verse. The verse in Chapter 9 of Ecclesiastes expresses the idea that the dead don't have a reward in the afterlife or know anything. So it is expressing an idea that some people may have conceived at the time and taken seriously. On the other hand, I read an explanation of Ecclesiastes that I think is right that the book presents this idea but then ultimately refutes the idea.
Wikipedia notes in its article on Ecclesiastes:

Textually, the book is the musings of a King of Jerusalem as he relates his experiences and draws lessons from them, often self-critical. The author, who is not named anywhere in the book, or in the whole of the Bible, introduces a "Kohelet" whom he identifies as the son of David (1:1). The author does not use his own "voice" throughout the book again until the final verses (12:9–14), where he gives his own thoughts and summarises what "the Kohelet" has spoken. ...
The book takes its name from the Greek ekklesiastes, a translation of the title by which the central figure refers to himself: Kohelet, meaning something like "one who convenes or addresses an assembly".[10] According to rabbinic tradition, Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon in his old age[11] (an alternative tradition that "Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes" probably means simply that the book was edited under Hezekiah),[12] but critical scholars have long rejected the idea of a pre-exilic origin.[13][14] The presence of Persian loan-words and Aramaisms points to a date no earlier than about 450 BCE,[2] while the latest possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when the Jewish writer Ben Sira quotes from it.

Ecclesiastes 1 begins:

1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.



2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.



3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?



4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

So it is opening with the ideas of this preacher. Then in Chapter 3, the person asks rhetorically:

21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

It sounds like the person is asking polemically what happens to the spirit in the afterlife. The book reminds me of a Socratic dialogue. Then later in Chapter 9, the preacher claims that the dead know nothing and don't get any reward.
The preacher ends his talk by making a statement in Chapter 12 that implies that there is an afterlife:

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.



8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.

Then in Chapter 12, the voice switches back to the narrator who introduced the preacher in Chapter 1. The narrator weighs in with his own judgment:

9 And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.



10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.



11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.



12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.



13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.



14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

The narrator compares the words of the wise to ox goads. I think that the sense is that the narrator's words are like goads for the audience because it goads them into engaging with the ideas in the text, like whether really everything is vanity or not. 
I also find this metaphor for be curious, comparing wise words to nails from the masters of an assembly given by a shepherd. It makes sense that God is ultimately the author of wise words. It sounds cryptic, and I sense in it that it is referring to Yeshua, the Good Shepherd, and the nails refer to the Passion. Otherwise, it is hard to see the point of the reference to nails in particular. The Ox goad from God also reminds me of the pictographic meaning of "EL" that we discussed earlier.
I am not sure if the author is warning against how much studying of books there is and how much it wearies flesh. The dialogue throughout the Book reminds me of Epictetus and how he had a cynical attitude sometimes, including of other philosophers, especially of Hedonism. 
The author's conclusion is that "God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." This conclusion goes against the sense of alot of the content of what thee preacher was preaching in the body of the text, so it makes me think that the narrator's point was really about God's judgment, and that it isn't true that everyone really gets the same level of rewards (nothingness). The preacher in the story was preaching sarcastically or making different hypotheses about everything being vain, which is true in some sense in that the world will eventually end, and about there being no knowledge after death, but these hypotheses are also refuted at the end of the book with the preacher saying that our souls go back to God and the narrator saying that God will judge everything.

You also made a good point that the Sadduccees denied the resurrection, which also helps to address Question 9.

Regarding Josephus' quote in Book VII that I quoted in the Question, it turns out that this was Josephus paraphrasing David's words in two passages, and doing so in a way that could be misleading. Thackeray's translation cites 1 Kings 2:1 for this passage in Josephus' writing. There, it says:

1. Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying,

2. I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man;
...
10 So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.

David says that he goes the way of all the earth, but it is not clear that this means that his soul won't go to God. It reminds me of the beginning of Genesis, when God tells Adam that he is from the dust and that he will return to it. It is true that Adam is from the dust, but his soul and spirit came from God, so it makes sense that Adam would return to God. Plus, it says that David "slept" with his fathers, which does not necessarily mean that his soul was annihilated, as sleep is distinguishable from death. It could mean that David was experiencing a sleeplike state that was not annihilation.
In Hebrew, David said "I go the way of all the earth". Lopuhin, in his Commentary on this verse, points to Joshua 23:14, where Joshua says:

Behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth. And you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one thing has failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spoke concerning you.

The other passage is in 2 Samuel 12:23, where he refers to the death of his son:

22. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

23. But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

There, David was asserting that his child won't actively return from the dead to him on earth, but he was not necessarily denying that anyone could return to life on earth after dying. In fact, the statement that David will go to his dead son could imply that he will see his son again in the afterlife.

It looks like Psalm 6 has the issues that we discussed in Psalm 30. Psalm 6 has:

4 Return, O Lord, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies' sake.



5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

The idea is that David wants rescue from death because in death there is no remembrance of God. Since it is known that people die, including the holy, God can remedy the situation by having their souls live in Paradise or He can bodily resurrect them.

I gave two example where resurrection or an afterlife is spoken of in Question 9:

Samuel the prophet learned of King Saul's fate after Samuel's own death in the incident when the witch of Endor called up Samuel's spirit. In Josephus' telling of the story (I think that Josephus is probably correct), the ghost whom the witch called up was really Samuel's and not just a demon pretending to be Samuel.

Still later, the prophet Elijah raised a deceased youth.

And I think that there is belief in an afterlife in Psalms 16,21-22, and 30. 
The idea in Psalm 30 was that David's soul was in the grave and that God brought him out of it.

So I think that we answered Question 9 enough. Basically, David was more ambiguous about the afterlife than Josephus' paraphrase made him look, but you found ancient examples of denial of it in Ecclesiastes (at least the idea is presented, if not endorsed), as well as the Sadduccees. 

[rakovsky]

For Question 10 (whether Solomon desecrated the Temple by killing Joab there), this would not be the only time that the Temple was desecrated, since 2 Chron.  says of King Manasseh and the First Temple:

And he set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen before all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever:

Louis Feldman, in his book Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible, notes that in order to portray Solomon as pious, Josephus adds into the story about Solomon killing Joab that Solomon ordered Joab to be taken from the Temple. But the Bible just portrays it as if Solomon was given the news about Joab hiding there and ordered him to be killed, without special orders about removing him.

In Ancient Supplication
, Fred Naiden sees the story of Joab going to the altar as fitting a motif of a supplicant going to an altar in ancient Greek and Near Eastern literature, and he interprets the story to mean that Joab's plea was rejected for his killings of Abner and Amasa. He writes:

In the prevailing view [in ancient literature], these killers [of suppliants at altars] have violated a nomos [law], and so they meet with divine punishment or authorial criticism... But we should notice two exceptions that show the importance of the suppliant's worth. When Greek tyrants are killed at altars - not expelled as Syphax was, but killed on the spot- the sources express tacit approval. And when Solomon has Joab killed at the altar, the source again expresses tacit approval. Even when human bloodshed pollutes shrines, a condemnation of the unworthy excuses the desecration.

I am skeptical that Naiden is correct that the text really shows tacit approval, because of Kang's arguments later below. It could be that the Biblical writer is subtly criticizing Solomon's decision.

The Pulpit Commentary on 1 Kings 2:31 theorizes that Solomon might have killed Joab at the altar because removing him from it could have led to Joab coutnerattacking his captors, and it also theorizes that Solomon had to kill Joab to cover Joab's killing of Abner, and that otherwise Solomon would have born the guilt of Abner's death had he not punished Joab. I am unsure whether Solomon would have born responsibility for Abner's death though. The Pulpit Commentary says:

the law decreed (Exodus 21:14) that, if a man had slain his neighbour with guile, he should be taken from the altar to die. Possibly the desperate character of Joab made literal compliance with this command well nigh impossible. The attempt to drag him from his place of refuge might have led to a bloody encounter. And the king evidently felt that Joab's crimes justified exceptional measures,

and bury him [why this injunction? Possibly because the spirit of Deuteronomy 21:23 seemed to Solomon to require it. Both Bahr and Keil think it was that Joab's services to the kingdom might be requited with an honourable sepulture. Was it not rather that the corpse might be removed with all possible haste from the sanctuary, which it defiled, and hidden from view, as one accursed of God, in the earth? So Bishop Hall: "He sends Benaiah to take away the offender both from God and men, from the altar and the world"];

that thou mayest take away [LXX. "today," σήμερον] the innocent blood [for the construction cf. 1 Samuel 25:31; Nehemiah 2:12; and Ewald, 287d. Innocent blood, i.e., blood not shed in war, or forfeited to justice, rested upon the community, or the authorities responsible for its punishment (Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 19:10, 13; Deuteronomy 21:9. Cf. Genesis 4:10) until satisfaction was made. See on ver. 5], which Joab shed, from me, and from the house of my father. [Heb. "from upon me." Solomon evidently believed that the guilt of blood was upon him and his house so long as Abner's and Amasa's blood remained unavenged ("The blood that is not required from the murderer will be required from the magistrate." Henry), and that he and his seed might have to answer for it, as Saul's seed had done (2 Samuel 21:1, 9). This is one of the many considerations which show that both David and Solomon were actuated not by "cold-blooded vengeance" or "long-cherished resentment" (Stanley), but by a sense of duty. In fact, Jewish law imperatively demanded the death of Joab, and to spare him was to violate all law, and to imperil the throne and the people. "Only a superficial observer," says Ewald, "can here reproach Solomon with needless severity."

In the letters that I put in bold above, the Pulpit commentary seems to support the theory that the blood of Joab defiled the altar.

I found a few commentaries that theorized that Joab's death was just and therefore it being spilled on the altar didn't count as a desecration. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the ban on contain with a corpse under Israelite purity laws didn't make the ban apply only when the corpse was from someone who died naturally or unjustly. It doesn't seem that even if Solomon supposedly needed to kill Joab there for safety reasons that Joab's corpse would not affect the ritual purity of what it touched there.

The King's Mirror (Speculum Regale-Konungs Skuggsjá), a Norwegian political and moral commentary from 1250 AD portrays Solomon as thinking:

I know of a surety that God's holy altar will not be defiled or desecrated by Joab's blood, for it will be shed in righteous punishment and as a penance for him, but not in hatred as in the case of an unjust verdict.

But even Moses' soldiers had to intensely purify themselves after the battles that the Lord had commanded. It seems to me that the excuse that the killing of Joab was justified does not show that the killing didn't desecrate the altar, even if the killing was justified.

Jung Ju Kang, in his essay "The Persuasive Portrayal of Solomon in 1 Kings 1-11
and the Josianic Redaction Theory", theorizes that there is tension in the narrative in 1 Kings because of the risk of desecrating the sanctury by killing Joab. He writes:

Benaiah hesitates to kill Joab at the altar, and
requests Joab to come out from the altar, instead of carrying out Solomon's command.
However, Joab replies,. `No! but here I will die' (v. 30). Benaiah reports back to
Solomon with what Joab has said. Thus, Solomon faces a problem choosing between

public violation of the right of sanctuary and some sort of amnesty. In this dilemma,
Solomon repeats his original command and the reasons for the necessity of Joab's
execution (vv. 31-32). These reasons are the bloodguilt of Joab and the innocence of the
house of David. Solomon describes Joab's murders as being `bloodguilt without cause'
, that is, a deliberate manslaughter, whose perpetrator could be forcibly
removed from the altar and put to death (Exod 21: 12-14). Finally, Benaiah strikes Joab
down, defiling the sanctuary.

So Solomon faced a dilemma. Exodus 21:14 said: "But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die." But Joab refused to leave the altar. According to Exodus 21, Solomon's soldiers would have to remove him from the altar first. Joab was grabbing the horns of the altar. It seems to me that the soldiers were capable of forcibly removing Joab like Exodus instructed.

Kang sees a conflict where Joab, The narrator, and Benaiah (who didn't at first kill Joab at the altar) see "the tent of YHWH, the altar
... as the holy place for refuge", whereas Solomon and Benaiah (after getting Solomon's orders) see it "as the holy place for justice".

The narrator shows a contradiction in Solomon's instructions for the desecration of the sanctuary of YHWH and the murder of Joab there. In order to remove the guilt
of innocent blood, Solomon is guilty of breaking the law. Regarding this point, Provan
has argued that


in ordering his execution beside the altar, Solomon himself is guilty of breaking the
law. Exodus 21: 12-14 quite clearly states that a murderer is to be taken away from the
altar and put to death, and Benaiah certainly seems to be aware of this... Solomon's
willingness to ignore the letter of -the law when it suits him only throws into sharper
relief his vindictive treatment of Shimei in [1 Kings] 2:36ff, where the letter of the law is
crucial.

Further, as Nelson observed, there is another irreducible inner tension. Does Joab die
because of his past crimes, as David and Solomon accused him (vv. 5,31-33), or
because of his support of Adonijah, as the narrator and Joab argued (v. 28)? This
tension and contradiction cause the reader to be suspicious about Solomon's motive.


This suspicion can be identified by placing this episode in its larger context. First, there
are sufficient reasons for Joab to kill Abner and Amasa. Joab argues that Abner has a
hidden motive in his visit to David (2 Sam 3: 24-25) and he realises Amasa's suspicious
behaviour in 2 Sam 20: 4-5. In this larger context, the reader may realise that David and
Solomon accuse Joab for private reasons: that is, Joab's killing of Absalom and the
subsequent humiliation of David (2 Sam 18: 33-19: 8), and Joab's support for Adonijah
(1 Kgs 2: 28).

Wesselius has also argued that the narrator indicates these private motives through the form and context of the statement of David and Solomon. 395 For example,
David's charge to Solomon in 1 Kgs 2: 1-9 is focused on the fate of three men, Joab,
Barzillai and Shimei, who had been involved in Absalom's revolt. On the other hand,
Solomon dealt with Adonijah, his partisans (Abiathar, Joab), and Shimei. According to
their attitudes toward David and Solomon, Barzillai and Abiathar were rewarded or
spared, while the others suffered a death-sentence. The narrator intends to point out in
this way that David and Solomon had their own private reasons to want Joab dead. In
the view of the narrator, Joab is not punished on the basis of the morally debatable
accusations of the murder of Abner and Amasa, but mainly because of his belonging to
Adonijah's party.

Kang is referring to Joab's justifications for killing Abner in 2 Samuel 3:

6. And it came to pass, while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, that Abner made himself strong for the house of Saul.
7. And Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah: and Ishbosheth said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father's concubine?
8. Then was Abner very wroth for the words of Ishbosheth, and said, Am I a dog's head, which against Judah do shew kindness this day unto the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren, and to his friends, and have not delivered thee into the hand of David, that thou chargest me to day with a fault concerning this woman?
9. So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the Lord hath sworn to David, even so I do to him;
10. To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba.
...
24. Then Joab came to the king, and said, What hast thou done? behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone?
25. Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest.
26. And when Joab was come out from David, he sent messengers after Abner, which brought him again from the well of Sirah: but David knew it not.
27. And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib, that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother.

It sounds like what happened was that Abner was Saul's ally, but then switched to David's side because he wanted Saul's concubine Rizpah. Abner went to David and David sent Abner to get allies for David, and when he was away, Joab came and decided to catch Abner on the charge that he was deceiving David.

Kang's thesis is that the narrator is portraying Solomon as murdering his political opponents to secure power that he already controlled. Kang notes that the story of killing Joab comes between two verses that declare that Solomon's power was established, 1 Kings 2:12 and 2:46. Kang notes that 1 Kings 2:12 says that Solomon's "kingdom was
firmly established".

3 While the narrator states that
Solomon's kingdom was assured, Solomon `executes the superfluous series of contrived
murders'. 374 After the murders, the narrator's comment is followed in v46b as an
inclusion, `and the kingdom was established in the hands of Solomon' ). As many scholars have observed, the narrator's two statements
not only frame 2: 12b-46 (as inclusio), but also provide the reader with a context in
which the reader must understand the intervening actions. 375 The comparison of v12b
with v46b shows the important difference in the manner of the establishment of the
kingdom. As Eslinger has observed, the difference is that `the establishment of the
kingdom now bears the imprint of Solomon's bloody hand'. 76 If Solomon's kingdom is
already `firmly established', the ensuing executions of his enemies in 2: 13-46a are unnecessary to consolidate his power. Thus, these executions are intended to show the
reader the character of Solomon, who `is preoccupied with his own security and with his
own `establishment' on the throne'. 377 In relation to the events in 2: 13-46a, the addition
of the phrase `in the hand of Solomon' in 46b has a rhetorical effect on the reader. Thus,

the arguments in 2: 12b-46 are made by establishing the structure of reality through
particular cases, as examples. 378 The narrator's general concluding argument in 46b is
established by pointing to four examples or particular cases in 13-46a; that is, the
executions of Adonijah, Joab and Shimei, and the exile of Abiathar. Consequently, the
narrative and argumentative details in 1 Kgs 2: 12b-46 have been used to gain the
reader's adherence to the thesis that Solomon consolidated his power with his own hand
through the unnecessary executions of his enemies. The political intrigue in the
consolidation of the kingdom guides the reader to doubt David's and Solomon's
integrity. Certainly, in this context, Solomon's effort to establish the Davidic dynasty in
2: 13-46a is connected with Solomon's political craftiness and his reliance on human
strength in chapters 3-11, which are put in the light of failure rather than success.

"Indiana Zones" in his online book The Message of the Covenant theorizes that it would have desecrated the altar:

It is important to note that this incident occurred at the tent-tabernacle that David pitched in Jerusalem, so this happened in front of the real Ark. This act effectively desecrated the tabernacle.... Under the , a corpse is one of the greatest causes of uncleanness and corpse uncleanness is known as one of the "Fathers of Uncleanness." In fact, the Levites were not ordinarily allowed to come into contact with a corpse except in the case of immediate family. Every place where the corpse was and everything that came into contact with it would be defiled and desecrated. If a corpse is in a tent everything and everyone in that tent are unclean. As a minimum, it would require 7 days of purification to resume the use of this altar or for any of the people on hand to purify themselves and this would also have to include immersion.

James Smith in his Commentary on 1 and 2 Kings theorizes that Solomon had "Good reasons" "for denying sanctuary at the altar", and

To attempt to drag Joab away from the altar would have created an ugly stir and might have led to a bloody encounter with some of Joab's numerous friends. After the execution, Benaiah was immediately to bury Joab's corpse thus removing it from the sanctuary it defiled and hiding it away from public view. Only by the shedding of Joab's guilty blood could the innocent blood of Abner and Amasa be washed away 'from me and from the house of my father.' Solomon must have had in mind such passages as Numbers 35:3.

So even though Smith considers the killing justified, he still sees it as defiling the altar.

So it looks like the answer to Question 10, after surveying what different writers have claimed, that it was a desecration. Even some writers who justify the killing think that it was a desecration. It violated the rule in Exodus for removing the refugees before killing them, and the has strong purity rules against touching corpses. Plus, the killing of Joab looks pretty questionable based on Kang's arguments.

[rakovsky]

Nov 14, 2019 10:48:26 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 13, 2019 17:55:52 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Charles Spurgeon's Sermon "1808. The Threshing-Floor Of Ornan" says that God chose a threshing floor because of its plainness and because God provides bread to people to live: This could be true, but it also feels shallow. Most Christian interpretations of the Bible seem shallow to us, and I'd agree here. He's not wrong, but he needs to go deeper. However to be fair, this is only one quote from an entire d'rash, so I don't know how deep he did go with this.

But Spurgeon is unsure if the threshing floor relates to an image or type of threshing or affliction, commenting: "Would it be fanciful if with a glance I indicated that the threshing-floor is the exact type of affliction?" Again, I'd have to view that in context to know for sure. 


...
Analogies of the grain which is left to the believers and their work on earth are numerous, but suffice to say that only the true believers are left. So metaphorically the threshing floor, like the wine press allegorically give us insights into spiritual truths. I do not see a mystical component. Like the "mystery of communion," it just isn't there. However if in your own theology you want to make a connection to the communion wafer you probably could stretch it that far and find your "mystical meaning."

mys•ti•cal (ˈmɪs tɪ kəl) adj.
1. mystic; occult.
2. of or pertaining to mystics or mysticism.
3. spiritually symbolic.

I suppose under def #3 you could make it work. For most Messianics the major connotation for the term is #'s 1 & 2. To us, the "mystery" is reveled in the typology. Trust me, we get "threshed and winnowed" all the time! We have a pretty good idea what it means! We also do the same to the Word, working out the meanings until only the pure, golden truth is left. That we store up. That is what nourishes us. No mystery, just good food. 

Dan,
I took you as saying that you would have to see Spurgeon's commentary on the meaning of the threshing floor to judge whether it was shallow, and to judge his hypothesis that "the threshing-floor is the exact type of affliction", which he floats as if he is unsure of it.
I took that quote from section 16 on his commentary on this topic, where he writes about his uncertainty:

16. Would it be fanciful if with a glance I indicated that the threshing-floor is the exact type of affliction? Tribulation means threshing in the Latin, and the saints through much tribulation enter the kingdom. One of the titles of the people of God is “my threshing and the grain of my floor.” Now it is well known that the Lord is with his people in their trials. When he strikes with one hand he holds with the other. In the lion of trial we find the honey of communion. The temple of glory is built on the threshing-floor of affliction. I do not thrust forward this observation as though it were of great weight, but even if it is a fantasy so far as the type is concerned, the thought conveys a truth in a pleasing manner.

I will give you a link to Spurgeon's sermon in case you wish to check into it: www.gutenebook.com/pdfs/526554/ Gutenbook is a non-theological collection of books. If the link goes against the forum rules, you can delete it. Like I said, I found it shallow as far as getting into any typological meaning of the use of a threshing floor, so you don't have to read it if you aren't interested. I had been reading other web articles that got deeper into the typological meaning.

I want to explain better what I meant about "mystical" meanings in the use of the threshing floor for the site of the Temple. I made a thread about it:
How did early & medieval Christians use the term Mystical? (http://theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4779/early-medieval-christians-term-mystical)
A good example is how the entry on Pope Hippolytus, a 2nd-3rd century Christian, in the Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters
 says about this Pope: "For a variety of reasons - apologetic, evangelistic and pastoral - he found it effective to develop a doctrine of Jesus the Messiah as mystically prefigured, as well as openly predicted, in the pages of the old covenant."


Strong's gives several definitions for the Greek word μυστήριον / Mysterion that is used 28 times in the NT. The third meaning is how I was using it:

Like רָזָא and סוד in rabbinic writers, it denotes the mystic or hidden sense: of an O. T. saying, Ephesians 5:32; of a name, Revelation 17:5; of an image or form seen in a vision, Revelation 1:20; Revelation 17:5; of a dream, (Theod.) Daniel 2:18f, 27-30, where the Sept. so renders רָז. (The Vulg. translates the wordsacramentum in Daniel 2:18; Daniel 4:6; Tobit 12:7; Wis. 2:22; Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 3:3, 9; Ephesians 5:32; 1 Timothy 3:16; Revelation 1:20.)

Ephesians 5 has:

30. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Paul was referring to Genesis 2:24, which says: Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
Paul was commenting that this is a great mystery. It seems that he was applying the verse in Genesis to joining the Church, because Paul adds: "I speak concerning Christ and the church."

The 2nd to early 3rd Century writer Origen, in his work Contra Celsum, uses the word "mystical" to refer to Paul's treatment of passages with mystical" meanings. Origen writes that the Apostle Paul was

obliged afterwards to say (in order that we might not misapprehend his meaning), after "Let us bear the image of the heavenly"(1 Corinthians 15:49), these words also: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption"(1 Corinthians 15:50). Then, knowing that there was a secret and mystical meaning in the passage, as was becoming in one who was leaving, in his Epistles, to those who were to come after him words full of significance, he subjoins the following, "Behold, I show you a mystery"(1 Corinthians 15:51); which is his usual style in introducing matters of a profounder and more mystical nature, and such as are fittingly concealed from the multitude, as is written in the book of Tobit: "It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God", — in a way consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude.

[rakovsky]

For Question 11 (Did the Temple have an upper level or a second story, and if so, what was there?) , Solomon's Temple did have an upper level, since 2 Chronicles 3:9 and other verses refer to it. "aliyyah" in Hebrew means a "roof chamber", a loft, or a second-story chamber.
1 Chronicles 28 uses the word "wa-‘ă-lî-yō-ṯāw", meaning "and its upper chambers", when it says about the designs for the Temple:

11. Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlours thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat, 12. And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit, of the courts of the house of the Lord, and of all the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of God, and of the treasuries of the dedicated things

2 Chronicles 3 says about Solomon's building of the Temple:

8. And he made the most holy house, the length whereof was according to the breadth of the house, twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits: and he overlaid it with fine gold, amounting to six hundred talents. 9. And the weight of the nails was fifty shekels of gold. And he overlaid the upper chambers with gold.

In fact, it sounds like there were three floors, starting with a bottom one, based on 2 Kings 6:

5. Against the walls of the temple and the inner sanctuary, Solomon built a chambered structure around the temple, in which he constructed the side rooms. 6. The bottom floor was five cubits wide, the middle floor six cubits, and the third floor seven cubits. He also placed offset ledges all around the outside of the temple, so that nothing would be inserted into its walls. 7. The temple was constructed using finished stones cut at the quarry, so that no hammer, chisel, or any iron tool was heard in the temple while it was being built. 8. The entrance to the bottom [literally: the middle, hat-tî-ḵō-nāh,] floor was on the south side of the temple. A stairway led up to the middle level, and from there to the third floor. 9. So Solomon built the temple and finished it, roofing it with beams and planks of cedar.

Also, a close reading of Josephus' Book VIII of the Antiquities shows that he was saying that the main sanctuary area was 60 cubits tall but that there was a second story on top of it so that the whole building stood 120 cubits:

. They erected its entire body, quite up to the roof, of white stone; its height was sixty cubits, and its length was the same, and its breadth twenty. There was another building erected over it, equal to it in its measures; so that the entire altitude of the temple was a hundred and twenty cubits. Its front was to the east. As to the porch, they built it before the temple; its length was twenty cubits, and it was so ordered that it might agree with the breadth of the house; and it had twelve cubits in latitude, and its height was raised as high as a hundred and twenty cubits.

Joseph Patrick theorizes about the second story of the Second Temple in his article "Reconstructing the Magnificent Temple Herod Built":

The Upper Chamber, which formed a second story above the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, was 40 cubits (69 feet) high; its walls were cubits (9 feet) thick. A mosaic strip of paving (r‘ashei psifasin) 1 cubit (21 inches) wide, separated the eastern part of the Upper Chamber extending over. the Sanctuary from the western part over the Holy of Holies. Like the double curtain between the Sanctuary and the Holy Holies, a curtain probably hung here as well. The entrance to the Upper Chamber, reached by walking from the top of the mesibbah upon the roof of the cells, was on the south; the entrance itself certainly opened into the area over the Sanctuary rather than the area over the Holy of Holies. Close by the entrance were two cedar posts that served as a ladder by which one could climb to the roof of the Upper Chamber, 45 cubits (78 feet) above the floor level.



In the western Part of the Upper Chamber, above the Holy of Holies, there were chimneys (lulin) (see the second sidebar to this article) or holes cut in the floor, through which maintenance artisans were let down in boxes open only towards the walls of the Holy of Holies. In this way the workmen could not see inside the Holy of Holies.

Ernest L. Martin notes in his essay, "Water Management
in Herod's Temple", quotes Massecheth Middot Perek II that the Temple courtyard (which is different from the Temple) had a second level which was a courtyard for women:

Abba Shaul said: "There they put the wine and the oil; it was called the chamber of the house of Schamanyah." And it [the wall] was at first flush, and they surrounded it with a gallery, so that the women looked from above and the men from beneath, for the purpose that they might not be mixed together. 32 And fifteen steps went up from there to [[from]] the Court of Israel, like the fifteen degrees in the Psalms [Songs of Degrees in the Psalms]. Upon these the Levites stood singing the songs. 
FOOTNOTES:
The Court of the Women was simply the second story (or a superimposition) of the Court of Israel – so the two courts were identical with the same lateral and linear dimensions. The Court of the Women was simply the second story of the Court of the Israelites.

This brings to mind how women are traditionally on the second level of Orthodox Jewish synagogues as Mark Kleiner writes in his article "Acoustics of music and voice in Jewish worship spaces":

Orthodox worship requires that men and women
pray physically separated. The upper section in Figure
6 shows one form of the traditional orthodox layout
where women pray on the upper level, as in the
synagogues of antiquity.

I am not sure that you can infer that women would be allowed into the second floor of the temple though. What do you think?

Isaac Newton, in his "Drafts concerning Solomon's Temple and the sacred cubit", wrote about the sanctuary as if the sanctuary was really on the second floor, but I find his wording confusing. Newtown wrote:

And Josephus clearly confirms that this was the case when he asserts that the sanctuary above was a square and surrounded by its own wall. For he means not the whole sanctuary including the court of the women, as Capellus [Editorial Note 33] suggested, but the upper level of the sanctuary to which one ascended by 15 steps from the court of the women, and which was called the sanctuary in the proper sense. His words τετραγὼνον δὲ ἄνω square above, very clearly indicates an upper level.

Tim Hegg, in his essay "Separating the Most Holy from the Holy", on the other hand claims that the floor over the Holy of Holies was "entirely" for workers to be lowered down for maintenance. Hegg cited citing M. Middot 4:5; b. Pesachim 86a. Here is Middot 4:5:

And a winding-stair 34 went up from the north-eastern angle to the north-western angle, by which they went up to the roofs of the chambers. One went up the winding [[inclined]]-stair with his face to the west, and went all along the north side, until he came to the west. He came to the west, and turned his face to the south, and went all along the west side till he came to the south. He came to the south, and turned his face eastwards, and went along the south side, till he came to the entrance of the Alijah; for the entrance to the Alijah opened to the south, and in the entrance to the Alijah were two beams of cedar, by which they went up to the roof of the Alijah, and the heads of the beams divided in the Alijah between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. And trap doors opened in the Alijah into the Most Holy Place, by which they let down the workmen in chests, that they might not feast their eyes in the Most Holy Place.

This passage in the Middot doesn't actually say that the only purpose was for workmen. On the other hand, Hegg might read it that way since the Middot doesn't specify any other purpose for the second level.
This upper level was called the "Alijah" or "Aliyah" in the Middot. Aliyah means an ascent. I don't know for how long it (making Aliyah) has also referred to Jews traveling to the Land of Israel/Zion.

Psalm 104 refers to God making his house in heaven like in upper chambers:

Who layeth the beams of his upper chambers (‘ălî-yō-w-ṯāw) in the waters who maketh the clouds his chariot who walketh upon the wings of the wind

The Encyclopedia of Freemasonry's entry on Alijah notes that Freemasons, who emphasize Solomon's Temple, as a rule meet on the second floor. It also points to the verse in Psalm 104. It theorizes that the upper room in ancient Jewish homes was for private devotion facing Solomon's Temple and that early Christians/apostles took on this practice and worshiped in the Upper Room (as is mentioned in the NT). In contrast, the book NKJV Word Study Bible: 1,700 Key Words that Unlock the Meaning of the Bible says that upper rooms were for guests, citing 2 Kings 4, and that kings had them to enjoy the coolness that they provided, citing Judges 30 and 2 Kings 1.

Elijah, in resurrecting the boy in 1 Kings 17, took the boy up to his upper room, using the same Hebrew word for a loft (aliyah), to revive him and brought him down again:

19. And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed.
20. And he cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?
  21. And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again.
22. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.
23. And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth.

In his book The Temples of the Jews and the Other Buildings in the Haram Area at Jerusalem, James Fergusson says that the question of what was in the Alijah of the Temple has been a neglected question and that it hasn't been answered by scholars. He theorizes that it was the "great congregation" of the priests and people referred to in Maccabees 14:28 (“At Saramel in the great congregation of the priests, and people, and rulers of the nation, and elders of the country, were these things notified unto us.”), but he notes that this theory is contradicted by the Talmud saying that only the kings of the House of David could sit in the courts of the Temple. Plus, the Temple isn't Saramel, right?
Fergusson also theorizes that the Aliyah served the purpose of a meeting hall for the priests, and he theorized that they lived in the side chambers on the side of the Temple, which I also saw referred to as places for storage chambers. He says that the first floor lacked the equipment for liturgy, like a bema and a place for chanting the Psalms, so the daily services must have happened on the Aliyah floor.

I think that the second part of this question, what was in the second level is tough. It seems to me that it could be living quarters, since God's upper chambers are the heavens where he lives. Or maybe they could be a place for the priests to meet as Fergusson theorized.

[alon]

Nov 14, 2019 13:15:28 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Also for Question 8 about the threshing-floor, the key verse identifying it with the Temple site is 2 Chronicles 3:1: "Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite."

Karen Holland writes in "The Threshing Floor: A Place of Worship?",

Threshing and winnowing are common metaphors for judgement (Dan 2:35; Isa 21:10; Jer 15:7, 51:2, 33; Hos 13:3; Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:17). The threshing floor is a place where good is separated from bad, true from false. The sheaves are beaten or crushed in order to make this separation.



...while the threshing floor is a place of judgement and testing, it is also a place to receive blessing. It is a place where the grain of the harvest is actually taken from the sheaves. As such, it is a place where the blessing is received. The Bible refers to “the increase of the threshing floor” (Num 18:30) and to a time when “the floors shall be full of wheat” (Joel 2:24). Like the threshing floor, the temple is also meant to be a place of blessing for God’s people. It’s out of this blessing received from the threshing floor that an offering to the Lord is to be made (Num 15:20, 18:27). This links the threshing floor to worship. The threshing floor as a place of receiving blessing, offering and worship fits perfectly with the temple! The judging, testing, and separation processes can be viewed as preparation for this worship.

...

Ruth also washed and anointed herself; then put on her best clothes before going to meet Boaz (Ruth 3:3). Is it a coincidence that Ruth in the time of the barley harvest went to the threshing floor to meet Boaz? Boaz represents Christ (our kinsman redeemer) and Ruth, the Bride of Christ, the church assembly. This expands the meaning of the threshing floor even further as a place where the Bride and Bridegroom meet and recognize one another. The “grinding of grain” can be seen as a depiction of the act of marriage (Job 31:10). Along the same lines, the image of the threshing floor is used when God’s people are not faithful. God calls it “adultery” or “playing the harlot” (Ezek 23:37, Hos 4:12). Notice what God says to Israel in Hosea 9:1 – “You have loved harlots earnings on every threshing floor”.

Dinah Dye, a Messianic Jew, in her article "Understanding Temple Idioms: The Threshing Floor", compares the threshing floor of the Temple with the concept of food for gods in other Ancient Near East nations:


To be clear, ha'satan copies Elohim, not the other way around. That said, ha'satan would have been familiar with the Heavenly Temple and would have known of these things.

The ziggurat, which enabled the god to descend from heaven to his second home on earth, was an altar where food from the garden was cooked and offered back to him. Sacrifices, therefore, played a major role in providing sustenance for the god and his entire household. The Temple in Jerusalem and its environs was structured in a similar fashion. The garden, described as a field, was for growing grain; the ziggurat was the altar or threshing floor for separating the grain from the stalks; and the Temple was the granary/storehouse for storing the seed grain for food consumption.

The difference is sacrifices to God either went to the priests to eat or were burnt on the altar. In pagan temples, they brought food for the gods, but priests had to sneak in and remove it so people would think their gods ate it.

...

Here the grain seed was stored in order to bring fruitfulness to the whole world. In reality, the Ark of the Covenant rested on the Foundation Stone inside the Holy of Holies, where it served as God’s earthly throne. Attached to the house/temple was a sacred garden where seed grain was planted, cultivated, and harvested as food for the entire household. The Garden of Eden functioned in much the same way. Adam, the gardener, also served as a priest and worked the garden to harvest food for his family and provide offerings for his God. The Hebrew word for garden is gan (!g). When the letter resh (r) is added to the word gan, it becomes goren (!rg), which is a threshing floor. Goren can also mean the first place for the gathering of seed. The garden was “the field,” which according to the sages was a term related to the Temple complex.

...

The “grinding of grain” alluded to the act of marriage, which brings to mind the story of Ruth and Boaz and their unusual encounter. Spreading the corner of Boaz’s robe over Ruth as she lay at his feet on the threshing floor was symbolic of an ANE proposal ritual (Ruth 3:9). The covering indicated Ruth’s submission to Boaz as the bride and his responsibility to protect her from an enemy who would seek to steal and destroy the grain seed. ...  Israel is holy to Adonai, the first (reisheet) of His crop (Jer. 2:3). The first fruit (reisheet) of the wheat harvest was offered at Shavuot (Feast of Weeks or Pentecost) when the Temple was standing.

And the Mishkan also.

I am skeptical of Dye's etymology for Kadesh. She writes:

The true definition of kadesh (vdq, holy) is “to thresh” or “to be set apart.” The purpose was to produce abundant fruit.

Rather, it looks like Qadash means consecrated or set apart. Qodesh means apartness, sacredness.

You are both saying the same thing. 

Dye also theorizes that the Ark was like a threshing cart:

The front part of the threshing board was narrower and curved upward like a sled and the board was made from one piece of wood. Similarly, the Ark cover was made of one piece of hammered gold that also curved upwards. A description of the Ark of the Covenant in the book of Ezekiel indicates it may have resembled a threshing cart. Later threshing sleds were fitted with wheels to become carts. When David had the Ark of the Covenant moved by cart it was taken to the threshing floor of Nakhon. It was there Uzzah was struck dead for grabbing hold of the ark to steady it when the oxen stumbled.

She also goes into the mortification of the flesh, and I am not sure about that, because it reminds me of an anti-flesh theology, although she makes it sound logical:

The heavy sled, when it was drawn over the straw and the ears, allowed for the ears to escape damage while the straw on top was crushed to pieces. What a compelling picture of judgment for the wicked represented by the chaff and atonement for the righteous represented by the life-giving grain seed! It is at the altar that the flesh is beaten, pulverized and trampled so it can be destroyed. The flesh is the obstacle that prevents entry into the Temple and into the presence of the King who resides in the Holy of Holies. The flesh must first be crucified at the threshing floor, as it was for Yeshua the Messiah. It is a painful process, indeed, but necessary for producing fruit for the Kingdom. It is impossible to enter the Temple, especially the Holy of Holies, without first removing the flesh. Once the flesh is removed, the seed is ready to be stored as food or it is fertilized to produce more fruit to feed the world as Joseph did in Egypt during the time of the famine. This underscores the eternal nature of seed and points to Yeshua as the model. He was the first of the grain seed (bar reisheet) whose flesh was crucified and destroyed. But from the threshing floor where He died, came resurrection and eternal life.

She's correct, although the way she expressed it sounds more Evangelical Chistian han Messianic.

SOURCE: www.academia.edu/15170482/Understanding_Temple_Idioms_The_Threshing_Floor

Victoria Radin, in her article "The Threshing Floor", gives a theory that the worship at the Temple is connected to judgment also:

The altar was a place of sacrifice and worship. The threshing floor, on the other hand, was the place where the harvest was prepared for usefulness, the place where the harvested grain, corn, and spices were subjected to the violence of the sledge, the grinding wheel, or vigorous shaking. It was usually built on heights or in open fields to insure the help of the wind in the winnowing process. As the place of separating the good from the bad, the threshing floor and its threshing and winnowing process became a metaphor for judgment (e.g. Isaiah 21:10, Jeremiah 15:7, 51:33, Daniel 2:35, Matt. 3:12). So how do we reconcile the idea that the threshing floor is also a place of worship and in one case, even a place of mourning before God (Genesis 50:10-11)?



The unmistakable message of the 2 Samuel 24 story is that worshiping God not only involves love and passion, but also sacrifice and judgment in its violence against sin. In other words, in worship we are stepping onto “the threshing floor” where our “wheat and chaff” are threshed by the Lord while a holy wind (the Holy Spirit) does the winnowing by blowing away the chaff from our lives. In the midst of our worship, we mourn before the Lord for having held onto any worldly ways and we praise the Lord for removing the things that impede our spiritual relationship with Him.

Don Walker notices the themes of worship, offering, mourning for Jacob/Israel, and marriage in the image of the threshing floor and connects them with the Temple in his essay "Worship and the Threshing Floor":

The first mention of a threshing floor is found in Genesis 50:10-11, “the threshing floor of Atad”, where Joseph and his brothers mourned the death of their father, Israel. It seemed appropriate for them to mourn at what we might consider an “unusual” place. Why mourn for Israel at a “threshing floor”? I believe the reason becomes more apparent as we see it’s significance in Old Testament typology.



The next reference we have to the threshing floor is in regards to the “heave offering” in Numbers 15:20. It speaks of the “offering of the the threshing floor”. We see a similar reference in Numbers 18:27.



It was at the “threshing floor of Nacon”, that Uzzah was struck dead for taking hold of the Ark of the Covenant (II Sam. 6:6-7).



Where was the Temple built? It was built at the threshing floor David had purchased from Ornan the Jebusite (I Chron. 22:1).



Let us consider what the threshing floor represents in the Scriptures. Its meaning goes beyond merely “the place where grain was threshed”. It is symbolic of the relationship between the Bride and the Bridegroom. It is not insigificant that Ruth came to Boaz at the “threshing floor” (Ruth 3:6-14). Boaz represents Christ (our kinsman redeemer) and Ruth, the Bride of Christ.



At the center of the threshing floor, one finds two large flat stones, one resting on the top of the other. They were “fitted and joined” together. The top stone was known as the “female” and the bottom stone the “male”. The “grinding of grain” was a depiction of the act of marriage (Job 31:10).



The act of marriage is a physical depiction of the “spiritual communion” God desires between Himself and Man. When God’s covenant people stray from Him and worship other gods, God calls it “adultery” or “playing the harlot” (Ezek. 23:37, Hosea 4:12). Notice what God says to Israel in Hosea 9:1, “You have loved harlots earnings on every threshing floor”.



It should be quite clear to you by now, that the “threshing floor” speaks to us about a place of worship.

The idea of the Church/Ekklesia as Christ's/Messiah's bride is a NT concept, but it also shows up in the TaNaKh like when Hosea sees his wife as a figure for Israel. It also shows up in Jeremiah 31, where God says of Israel's fathers with whom He made a covenant when He brought them from Egypt, "I was a husband to them".

Then how can it be classified as a "NT concept?" There is nothing "New" in the NT.

It looks to me like the answer to Question 8 lies in the images that these writers found, with judgment, setting apart / consecrating, offering food to God, marriage and union. These images are associated with threshing floors in the TaNaKh and would be familiar to the writer and readers of the passage on the selection of the floor for the Temple.

Yep!

[rakovsky]

You asked:

The idea of the Church/Ekklesia as Christ's/Messiah's bride is a NT concept, but it also shows up in the TaNaKh like when Hosea sees his wife as a figure for Israel. It also shows up in Jeremiah 31, where God says of Israel's fathers with whom He made a covenant when He brought them from Egypt, "I was a husband to them".

Then how can it be classified as a "NT concept?" There is nothing "New" in the NT.

It was more clearly, concisely, openly, expressed in the NT. Jeremiah 31 says of Israel's fathers "I was a husband to them", but it says that along with lots of other descriptions and Jeremiah didn't elaborate on the husband status in the passage, and he wasn't clearly saying that he was still Israel's husband in the passage.

But I didn't mean that it was exclusively a NT concept.

[alon]

Nov 15, 2019 7:41:39 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

You asked:

The idea of the Church/Ekklesia as Christ's/Messiah's bride is a NT concept, but it also shows up in the TaNaKh like when Hosea sees his wife as a figure for Israel. It also shows up in Jeremiah 31, where God says of Israel's fathers with whom He made a covenant when He brought them from Egypt, "I was a husband to them".

Then how can it be classified as a "NT concept?" There is nothing "New" in the NT.

It was more clearly, concisely, openly, expressed in the NT. Jeremiah 31 says of Israel's fathers "I was a husband to them", but it says that along with lots of other descriptions and Jeremiah didn't elaborate on the husband status in the passage, and he wasn't clearly saying that he was still Israel's husband in the passage.

But I didn't mean that it was exclusively a NT concept.

Then you'd be correct. One of the things Jews expected (and still do) of their Messiah is He would more completely explain . And that is exactly what Yeshua, and later His shaliachim (apostles) did.

Dan C

[rakovsky]

I was looking to explain the marriage aspect of the threshing floor by seeing God as Israel's husband, but I had a harder time finding the image of God as His people's husband in the OT. It's in Hosea too. The identity of the barren woman in Isaiah 54 could be Israel or the Ekklesia, but it's not as obvious.

[rakovsky]

For Question 12, Exodus 16 says:

33. And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the Lord, to be kept for your generations. 34. As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept.

The Testimony refers to the tablets of the Ten Commandments.
My theory is that the Ark contained the manna and Aaron's rod, not just the tablets, but then they were removed, so only the tablets were left.

Anne writes on Christianity Stackexchange:

The NIV Study Bible notes on 2 Chronicles 5:10 say the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod were presumably lost when the Philistines captured the Ark of the Covenant. (See 1 Samuel 4:11 to chap. 6)

I saw a few claims that Exodus and Numbers and Hebrews didn't specify that the manna and rod were inside the Ark itself, but I didn't find those claims' explanations very clear.

GotQuestions.org reiterates these two kinds of explanations, and I didn't find its explanation that the manna and rod weren't in the ark very persuasive:

There are two possible ways to reconcile 1 Kings 8:9 with Hebrews 9:4. One is that the ark in Moses’ time contained all three items mentioned in Hebrews but, by Solomon’s time hundreds of years later, only the stone tablets remained. The other items could have been removed in Eli’s time by the men of Beth Shemesh when “they looked into the ark of the Lord” (1 Samuel 6:19). Before that, the ark was in the possession of the Philistines for a time, and they could have removed some of the ark’s contents. It could also be that Solomon himself had the manna and the staff removed from the ark and set nearby in the same room at the time of the temple’s dedication.

Another possibility is that the bowl of manna and Aaron’s staff were not usually inside the ark of the covenant, but rather beside it. God’s command in Exodus 16:33 was for Moses to place the manna “before the LORD” (ESV) or “in a sacred place before the LORD” (NLT). Similarly, the staff was to be placed “before the testimony” (Numbers 17:10, ESV) or “permanently before the Ark of the Covenant” (NLT). So, the manna and the staff were kept in the same place as the tablets of stone, but it’s possible they were not, strictly speaking, inside the ark.

The Apologetics press article on the "Contents of the Ark of the Covenant" notes:

In Hebrews 9, the inspired writer refers to the time of Moses, when “a tabernacle was prepared” (vs. 2; cf. Exodus 25-40). The statement in 1 Kings 8:9 (as well as 2 Chronicles 5:10) is from the time of Solomon, when he built the Temple, approximately 500 years after the tabernacle was constructed.

For me, saying that it was "laid up with" the Testimony "to be kept" suggests that the item was laid in the Ark together with the tablets for safekeeping. Plus, saying that it was before/near the Testimony, rather than before the Ark, suggests that it was in the Ark near the Testimony. In Greek, the word en could also mean near.

[rakovsky]

Question 13 is in two parts:
(A) Is there a connection between the number of talents of gold brought to Solomon for the Temple's construction (666) being the same as the number of the beast or AntiChrist in Revelation? 
(B) Maybe there is some underlying meaning in the number 666 that is shared between the two usages?

The answer to A) is that Yes there is a connection because of the similarity of the context. The amount of gold brought to the Temple was 666, and the number required for buying or selling in Revelation was also 666. Revelation 13 is saying that the number of the beast and his name are 666, and that the number was required to buy or sell:

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six. (Revelation 13:17-18)

I got into the similarities in my opening thread post, like Solomon making the Temple at a time of his spiritual slide into multiplying his earthly power, foreign wives, and worship of pagan gods. Deuteronomy 17 bans kings from multiplying their gold, which Solomon did by getting the same amount each year. Revelation uses alot of OT images and figures, like the commander Magog at Armageddon being a commander in the apocalyptic battle in the Book of Ezekiel.

B) is asking whether the number 666 itself has an underlying or inner meaning that could apply to the gold for Solomon's building the Temple and to Revelation's Number of the Beast.
One theory that I can imagine is that 666's meaning here is that it is the name-number of Caesar Nero or emperor Domitian, and that it shows up in the story of Solomon's Temple as a prefigurement of these powerful Roman emperors because Solomon was evincing his power. (The letters of Neron Kaisar in Greek add up numerically to 666).

Scott Pauline, on the Catholic 365 website, makes a theory based on the underlined premise below, but I am unsure if his premise works:

A mystical way to look at this symbolism is to reverse the relationship between God and man. We see this by first recalling that 7 is the number of perfection and so, in one sense, of God. It follows that 6 is a symbol of imperfection and therefore of man, who falls very short of God. But then, just as God is three Divine Persons in one Nature, so three 6’s in one number symbolizes man [6] making himself as God [three in one].
Consequently, whereas GOD made man in GOD'S Image and Likeness, the flip side is that, through the evil number above, MAN makes God in MAN'S image.
Subsequently, when MAN makes God into MAN'S image, one greater result is paganism, which is precisely the nature of man projecting his image onto the Divine. For, in paganism, the deities are largely a reflection of the fallen nature of man, themselves finite in power and in constant struggle according to diverse, and many times arrogant and selfish, passions.
An additional severe form in the nature of man making God into his image is the blasphemous tendency of humanity to even deify themselves, presuming utter independence from God, the makers of their own destiny and fulfillment, and the final arbiter of truth.

The website Science alert claims that the translation the points to Nero comes from Hebrew (as opposed to Greek):

if you translate the Hebrew spelling of 666, you actually spell out Neron Kesar - the Hebrew spelling of Nero Caesar.

The video on Youtube, "666 - Numberphile" says that 666 is a "Triangular number". It says that in Greek, the instructions in Revelation 1 say that the reader should "calculate" the number of the beast, which is 666. Counting names in Hebrew is Gematria, and in Greek it is called Isosophy. The video presenter writes out Nero Caesar in Hebrew. Nero in Hebrew is Neron, and the letter N in Hebrew Gematria has the value of N. Adding the number values up comes to 666. A triangle number is a number that results from summing lesser consecutive numbers starting with 1. For example, 1+2+3=6, so 6 is a triangular number. A practical example is that the roulette table has numbers running from 0 to 36, and the sum of their values comes to 666. The video notes that Nero Caesar without the n at the end of Neron comes out to 616 in Gematria, and it notes that in some early manuscripts of Revelation, the number of the beast is 616, so the editor must have recognized that the basic name was Nero's and he was using a different way for writing Nero's name with Hebrew letters.

Noam D. Elkies, a Jewish mathematician, in his 2004 "Morning Prayer Talk" article "The Numerology of the Beast" says:

Nero Caesar in Hebrew is NeRON QeiSaR; adding up the letters we get 'the number of the man', 666. ...  It made sense for an early Christian to represent Nero, and the pagan and powerful Empire that Nero stood for, as the Beast. It also made sense to use the code of gematria. If you write plainly that Nero and Rome are doing the Devil's work, then you're an enemy combatant [in the eyes of Rome], and the Roman legal code had no Bill of Rights. ... But the really suggestive hint is that the oldest manuscripts don't agree on the number: some have 616 instead. It's much harder to concoct an explanation that fits both numbers, and only one of the proposed interpretations of the Number of the Beast accounts for both: Nero. Remember it was NeRON QeiSaR in Hebrew. But the final N of NeRON is optional: the name can also be rendered NeRO, subtracting the letter N [Nun] and its value of 50 to get -- 616. ... 
Going back to chemistry, some have even seen the Beast... in life itself, based on the carbon atom with its 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons!

As the Halexandria website notes, a magic square where the number of each side adds up to 111 contains the consecutive numbers from 1 to 36 and those numbers add up to 666. This brings to mind the Roulette wheel's numbers discussed earlier. The Halexandria website's article on 666 notes that pi (3.14159.....) times phi (.618033........) times 7 times 7 times 7 might calculate to 666. "phi" is a number that is part of the Golden Ratio. The Golden Number.net website explains how one reaches "phi":

Divide a line so that:


Sectioning a line to form the golden section or golden ratio based on phi
, the ratio of the length of the entire line (A)
to the length of larger line segment (B)
is the same as
the ratio of the length of the larger line segment (B)
to the length of the smaller line segment (C).

This happens only at the point where:
A is 1.618 … times B and B is 1.618 … times C.

Alternatively, C is 0.618… of B and B is 0.618… of A.

The Halexandria website argues that the beast in Revelations having the number 666 does not mean that the number is inherently bad. For instance, the article notes:

There is, of course, the matter of the beast having seven heads, but as modern parlance goes, wearing seven hats is nothing more sinister than being an "A personality" or workaholic. Ten horns is also potentially a good thing in that horns have traditionally been a connecting link between the bearer and the universal source, and ten (or nine more than one) sounds even better.

Wikipedia's article on 666 notes that 15, 21, 36, and 666 are triangular numbers, that the sum of the consecutive numbers from 1 to 36 = 666, that 15 + 21 = 36, and that 15^2 + 21^2 = 666. On the other hand, in the TALK section of the article, a commentor cast doubt on this being remarkable, writing:

True enough, but in general, any square number can be written as the sum of two consecutive triangular numbers, and the sum of the squares of these triangular numbers equals the number triangled. For example,
4=1+3; 1+2+3+4=10; 12+32=10.

9=3+6, 1+2+3...+9=45, 32+62=45.

The Wikipedia article also says:

666 is the sum of squares of first seven primes: 2^{2}+3^{2}+5^{2}+7^{2}+11^{2}+13^{2}+17^{2}


The Roman numeral for 666, DCLXVI, has exactly one occurrence of all symbols whose value is less than 1000 in decreasing order (D = 500, C = 100, L = 50, X = 10, V = 5, I = 1).

The Wikipedia article also notes that "In the Bible, 666 is the number of Adonikam's descendants who return to Jerusalem and Judah from the Babylonian exile (see Ezra 2:13).
" Adonai means "The Lord/Adonai arises." Elilabs' article on "Adonikam" notes:

Ne 7:18 The children of Adonikam, six hundred threescore and seven.

The discrepancy is that the number reported this time is 667, not 666. This is not really a discrepancy after all, as this second number is just counting Adonikam along with his descendants.
Adonikam was a noble under Artaxerxes sent from Babylon to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple. He is thus analogous to the craftsmen under Hiram in the time of Solomon.

The article also claims that Shemaiah promoted only non-Levite priests to serve in the new Temple, therefore making them false priests. But Elilabs' article's citation in the Bible (Ezra 8:18) looks to me like it specifies that the minister whom Shemaiah and others found for a priest was a son of Levi, thereby making the priest legitimate and not a false priest.
According to the Wolfram Mathworld article on "Beast Number":

Wang (1994) showed that

phi = -2sin(666 degrees)

phi = -2cos(6×6×6 degrees),

where phi is the golden ratio, which can be combined to give

phi = -[sin(666 degrees)+cos(6×6×6 degrees)]

Milo noted on Graham Hancock's forum that "60 and 360 were used as bases in Babylonian mathematics, as in the degrees of a circle; 360=10x36 and 666 is the sum of the numbers from 1 to 36." Examples of 60 and 360 being used often today and coming from Babylonian mathematics are the 60 minutes in an hour and the 360 degrees in a circle.
But Milo's forum post "666 can be related to the Zodiac" went way over my head. For instance, he starts out by writingg, "For a complete synthesis of the energies embodied in the zodiac, harmony must be established between all 36 decantes (36 times 10 degrees = the full circle).
Every combination or blend of energies must be expressed twice, first as an idea or insight and second, lived out at a practical level." eg. I don't know what is a decante. So I am skeptical of his theory.

One interpretation that would make sense is that Revelation 13 actually says that 666 is the number of man, not particularly the number of "a man". The Greek wording in the verse says, "ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν," meaning literally "number for of man it is". On the 6th day, God made man. Tripling the 6's could refer to treating man as a god, since God in the Bible is like a threesome.

On the Wikipedia Talk page for 666, Scott mentioned: 

There is a theory/idea regarding the biblical meaning of 666. Man was created on the sixth day and the Supreme Being is three persons (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Therefore the number 6 represents man and the fact that it is repeated three times implies that man is trying to be God.

Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Book V, Chp. 30 says that there are alot of names whose Greek spelling comes out to 666, one of them being Lateinos, meaning "The Latin one". However, he concludes that it is hard to chose one of the possible names for certain until the Antichrist comes. Here is what he says about Lateinos:

Then also Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence].

It is worth doing some debunking of claims about this number. One writer noted that the Number of the beast is not actually three 6's as one might interpret some numbers (6-6-6), but rather a sum that is equal to Six hundred sixty six.

So for instance, the following diagram might not be relevant:

This diagram shows a way where one can find three 6's in a hexagram, but this is perhaps not the same as the Biblical sum that reaches "666". "666" in the Bible is 600+60+6, maybe not 6,6,6. On the other hand the idea that 666 is the number of man might have the idea of a threesome 6.

Also, Seventh Day Adventists have claimed that in Babylonian astrology, the sun was assigned the number 666, and that the Babylonians had Magic Square amulets numbered from 1 to 36, with the sum on each side being 111 and the total sum being 666. However, not only could I not confirm this from real scholarship, I found an article debunking the claim and saying that there were no such 666 Babylonian amulets. A photo shown by the 7th Day Adventists supposedly of the amulet was actually of a square Chinese seal.

[rakovsky]

Also regarding Question 13, it looks like the Greek text in Revelation 13 literally refers to "the number of man", not "the number of a man".
Revelation 13:7-8 says: And that no man might buy or sell save he that had the mark or the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast for it is the number of man and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
It sounds like this is literally saying that the beast's number is the number of man and is 600+3 times 20+6.
The Bible Study Tools page on this verse says:

Ἀριθμὸς ἀνθρώπου [Arithmos anthrōpou] , simply number of man. The definite article (“the”) is not found in the Greek text. Wallace sees the missing article as an indication that the number is not of a man, but the number of humankind.(1)
(1) “If ἀνθρώπου [anthrōpou] is generic, then the sense is, ‘It is [the] number of humankind.’ ... In light of Johannine usage, we might also add Rev. Rev. 16:18+, where the Seer clearly uses the anarthrous ἂνθρωπος [anthrōpos] in a generic sense, meaning ‘humankind.’ The implications of this grammatical possibility, exegetically speaking, are simply that the number ‘666’ is the number that represents humankind. Of course, an individual is in view, but his number may be the number representing all of humankind. Thus the Seer might be suggesting here that the antichrist, who is the best representative of humanity without Christ (and the best counterfeit of a perfect man that his master, that old serpent, could muster), is still less than perfection (which would have been represented by the number seven).”—Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software, 1999, 2002), 253.

Wallace is making a good point that in Revelation 16:18, the author uses "man" in a generic sense. If 666 refers to deifying man on his own without God, the number would fit the character of the Roman emperor, who persecuted Christians for failing to worship him.

Lorito Kara-Ann made an interesting observation on the Quora website:
"Why is 6 the number of man and the number of the beast?
Answer: 6 is the number of man and the beasts because they were created on the 6th day."
That is, Revelation says 666 is the number of the beast and the number of man. And in Genesis, the beasts and man were made on the same day.
Genesis 1 has:

24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

Garry De Vries writes on Quora: "777 would stand for supreme perfection (if there could be such a thing) and 666 stands for persistent failure, repeated frustration, permanently missing the mark. That is why it is called ‘man’s number’."
The reference to incompleteness in 6's and the number 777 reminds me of how we have trouble precisely calculating Pi and phi and that they times 7 cubed = 666.

[alon]

Nov 15, 2019 16:08:43 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

I was looking to explain the marriage aspect of the threshing floor by seeing God as Israel's husband, but I had a harder time finding the image of God as His people's husband in the OT. It's in Hosea too. The identity of the barren woman in Isaiah 54 could be Israel or the Ekklesia, but it's not as obvious.

Isaiah 54:5 (ESV)
For your Maker is your husband,
the Lord of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called.

Hosea 2:16 (ESV) “And in that day, declares the Lord, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’ / Hosea 2:16 (YLT)And it hath come to pass, in that day, An affirmation of Jehovah, Thou dost call Me -- My husband, And dost not call Me any more -- My lord.

Yirmeyah 3:14 (OJB) Shuvu (Turn), O banim shovaviv (backsliding children), saith Hashem; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one from a town, and two from a mishpakhah, and I will bring you to Tziyon:

Jeremiah 31:32 (ESV) not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. / Yirmeyah 31:32(31) (OJB) Not according to the Brit that I cut with their Avot in the day that I took hold of their yad to take them out of Eretz Mitzrayim; which My Brit they broke, although I was Ba’al (Husband) to them, saith Hashem;

These are just a few of literally dozens of OT verses either outright saying HaShem is Israel's husband or strongly hinting at it. In addition there are many which talk about His covenant with Israel which could (and often do) imply a familial relationship. This is a well established concept in Judaism, Messianic Judaism, and in Christianity (at least in Evangelical Protestantism).  don't know how RC and EO view this. If they disagree, my guess it is the result of the church fathers attempts to get rid of the hated Jews from their new religion. But that's speculation, because as I said I don't know how your church views it.

Dan C

p.s.: Sorry I am behind answering your posts. It's been a difficult week, with several spiritual attacks (mostly due to my volatile nature- mea culpa- but some definitely not). But it ended with rushing my wife in to the ER yesterday then into emergency surgery. That went well (Baruch HaShem- prayer works). But I was with her all day, so not on here except really quick late yesterday evening. Going back today and will find out more, but she should be coming home sometime today. I'll try to get to them later.

[rakovsky]

Sure, Dan, take it easy, you don't have to rush with the replies. I appreciate the answers that you have made. What you said about the relationship between Israel and God in the verses would also show up in the EO, RC, and mainstream Protestant views. When I have tough times with things I like to recite the Psalms that I have posted on the forum. My landlord and I were good friends for years, and he was a very elderly Polish immigrant. Maybe it was a combination of his tough WWII experience from the Germans or his piety or Polish character, but regardless, he was a very calm person who basically never got angry or lost his temper with anything (which is not to say that he didn't have moments of tiny annoyance with his wife). It rubbed off on me. If one recognizes volatility in oneself, it is half the battle.

[rakovsky]

For Question 13, Eugen Wilhelm Reuss rejects Irenaeus' theory that 666 refers to "Lateinos", writing: 

The terms "Latium," "Latini," had no existence in the first century but in the poetry and local geography of the Campagna of Rome, and, as the name of a language, was utterly unknown in any form within apostolic sphere (Luke xxiii. 38; John xix. 20).

..The beast of the thirteenth chapter is not an individual, but the Roman Empire, regarded as a power. The writer himself tells us (chap. xvii.) that the seven heads of the beast represent the seven hills on which his capital is built; and again, seven kings who have reigned, or still reign, there. This is quite true, but he tells us quite as plainly that this beast is at the same time one of the seven heads, a combination apparently inconceivable and more than paradoxical, but at the same time very natural, and even necessary. The idea of a power, especially of a hostile influence, always tends to assume a concrete form, to personify itself in the popular mind. The ideal monster becomes an individual; the principle assumes a distinct human shape, and under this personal form ideas become popularised, till individuals come in their turn to be the permanent representatives of ideas and influences which outlive themselves. ... The beast is, then, at once the Empire and the Emperor... (Eduard Wilhelm Reuss, History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1884), 155)

David Chilton writes in "Days of Vengeance": 

The form Neron Kesar (1) is the linguistically "correct" Hebrew form, (2) is the form found in the Talmud and other rabbinical writings, and (3) was used by Hebrews in the first century, as archaeological evidence has shown. As F. W. Farrar observed, "the Jewish Christian would have tried the name as he thought of the name-that is in Hebrew letters. And the moment he did this the secret stood revealed. No Jew ever thought of Nero except as ‘Neron Kesar,’ and this gives at once . . . 666"

Evert Jan Hempenius writes in his outline, "Revelation 13:11-18 -Who is afraid of the number 666? Be wise": "For it is man's number." "It is the number of humankind."

▪ 666 is also a triangle number. (See for an explanation above). Triangle numbersare meant to refer to the godly realm.

▪ The first beast wore blasphemous names, like “god,” “lord,” and “saviour.” It is about a man who wants to be like god, to be God himself. It is the root of all sins that man wants to be like god.
▪ When we look back at the first encounter with the serpent and dragon in Genesis 3, we read: “The serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5). Read also 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4: “Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”

In his essay "Demystifying the number of the beast in the book of revelation: examples of ancient cryptology and the interpretation of the “666” conundrum", M G. Michael does a good job reviewing what he calls the symbolic-theological interpretation of 666, seeing it as symbolizing man's number in a bad way. He quotes ST. Irenaeus who holds this view as well as modern writers. Irenaeus was from Asia Minor and was writing about 75 years after the apostle John, who was on the Island of Patmos next to Asia Minor, so Irenaeus has some value as an authority on Revelation (though not an infallible one).

M.G. Michael quotes Irenaeus as seeing 666 as the "sum" of Noah's 600 years of age before the flood, the 60 cubit height of Nebudchadnezzar's statue and the 6 cubit width of the statue's base, thus pointing to the number as a symbol of wickedness and apostasy. Irenaeus also sees it as the sum of 6X100, 6X10, and 6:

“...that is, six times a hundred, six times ten, and six units. [He gives this] as a summing up of the whole of that apostasy which has taken place during six thousand years”

Michael also noted that Irenaeus also related 666 to people's names, not just to symbols of wickedness. He summarizes modern writers views, including:
"In this context six is an evil and pretentious approximation; triple six perhaps represents the evil trinity of the dragon, the sea beast and the land beast, posturing as God" (P. Barnett, Apocalypse Now and Then. Maryborough: Anglican Information Office, 1989. )

"666 is the counterfeit of the divine Trinity." "...this pseudo-trinity is that of Satan (the dragon) plus antichrist (the first beast) plus the false prophet (the second beast)..." (P. E. Hughes, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary. Leicester: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.)

"The number is symbolic of all that which parodies the Divine, and so always falling short of God." "...666 is then the number of man pretending to be God (cf. Mk 13:14, 2 Thess 2:4) or falling short of God" (J. Richardson, Revelation Unwrapped. New South Wales: MPA Books, 1996.)

So I think that the answer to Question 13 is that the inner meaning of 666 is that it serves as a number of man, with 6 being the number of the day on which beasts and man were made in Genesis 1), and with the threesome of the 6's referring to self-deification, setting the man (eg. antiChrist) up like a god. This is reflected in the multiplication of Solomon's gold (666 per year), as well as the beast's number 666 being required for buying or selling in Revelation. It is the number of the name of the beast because the beast sets himself up as an anti-Christ, a false Christ who pretends to be divine but is based on worldly power.

[rakovsky]

Nov 9, 2019 13:31:46 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 6, 2019 13:26:28 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

(Question 10) Did Solomon desecrate the Temple's altar by killing Joab there?

Good question. He was not sacrificed, even though he held the horns of the altar where a sacrificial animal was tied.

Since the blood carries life, and his was not innocent blood I’d say it is a possible desecration. And in Judaism it is what comes out of a body that defiles.

On the other hand, the reason for the purity rituals in Judaism were so that uncleanness, or defilement would not be transferred to the Temple. If much were transferred there then the Shekhinah would depart. This did not happen with this incident.

 While the biblical account doesn’t specifically say he was killed at the altar, it certainly reads like that was the case. But the only alternative I can think of was Solomon’s men could have forcibly removed him and killed him elsewhere.

(Question 12) In addition to the Ten Commandments, did the Ark also hold Aaron's rod that had budded or the manna from the desert?

Those items which accompanied the ark may have been placed inside while it was with the Philistines. Or possibly later. We are not told. However I’d believe Paul before Josephus. Not that Paul couldn’t be wrong, just that he is much more reliable. And his remarks are in scripture, Jo's are not

For Question 10, I agree that it's a possible desecration. In fact, since corpse contact renders someone unclean, wouldn't Joab dying on the altar make the altar unclean? Or are objects not able to be made unclean according to ?

You wrote that the only alternative was that Solomon's men could have forcibly removed him. In fact, says that this is what they needed to do. But I don't know that the fact that they violated means that the object, the Ark, becomes unclean. Rather, it's the fact that it touched a corpse that makes it unclean, right?

For Question 12, Josephus was just repeating what the books of Kings and Chronicles said about the emptiness (except for the tablets) of the Ark in Solomon's era. Paul was talking about Moses' time and the time of the tabernacle, IIRC, on the other hand.