Jacob as Temple Priest

[David Bokovoy]

The blood was not placed upon the garments of the watchman.

Blood, as David pointed out, meant life. As Metsudat David explains the verse, "you will receive punishment for his death." Metsudat Tzion has "I will require retribution for it."

Excellent. I really need to devote more attention to Rabbinic commentary. This is a unique speciality that you have. I'm not aware of anyone in the Church with as strong a background in Rabbinics as you possess; it really is its own entity and no one has yet pursued these issues seriously in connection with the Book of Mormon, etc. We're really fortunate to have you.

[Bill Hamblin]

You really don't need to go beyond Ex 20:5-6 to show ancient Israelite belief in communal responsibility for sin:

I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

The sins of the fathers cannot be justly attributed to the children unless you understand the sense of communal sin and responsibility as practiced in Israel and more broadly in the ancient world. Note that communal sin only lasts 3-4 generations, while communal righteousness endures forever--to the thousandth generation.

This concept is reflected in Mt 27:25 where the Jewish mob proclaims "His [Christ's] blood be upon us and on our children!" This is clearly reflecting the communal guilt concept in Ex 20:5-6. (Some Catholics, misunderstanding this, have traditionally attributed the communal guilt upon all Jews in all generations, but this ignores the Exodus 20 limitation of communal guilt to 3-4 generations.) The irony here is that Christ's blood is upon those who condemned him, but not the blood guilt they were accepting (since they believed him worthy of death), but the atoning blood that they were rejecting (Lev 16:15, Heb 9:11-28). The Day of Atonement concluded with the High Priest offering communal forgiveness to Israel (Lev 16:24, 30,33), just as Christ concludes his atonement by offering communal forgiveness: "Father, forgive them."

Ancient Israelite atonement theology makes no sense if not understood in the light of communal guilt theology. (Another quick example, all Israel is punished for the sins of a single man in Josh 7:10-26.)

[WalkerW]

You really don't need to go beyond Ex 20:5-6 to show ancient Israelite belief in communal responsibility for sin:

The sins of the fathers cannot be justly attributed to the children unless you understand the sense of communal sin and responsibility as practiced in Israel and more broadly in the ancient world. Note that communal sin only lasts 3-4 generations, while communal righteousness endures forever--to the thousandth generation.

This concept is reflected in Mt 27:25 where the Jewish mob proclaims "His [Christ's] blood be upon us and on our children!" This is clearly reflecting the communal guilt concept in Ex 20:5-6. (Some Catholics, misunderstanding this, have traditionally attributed the communal guilt upon all Jews in all generations, but this ignores the Exodus 20 limitation of communal guilt to 3-4 generations.) The irony here is that Christ's blood is upon those who condemned him, but not the blood guilt they were accepting (since they believed him worthy of death), but the atoning blood that they were rejecting (Lev 16:15, Heb 9:11-28). The Day of Atonement concluded with the High Priest offering communal forgiveness to Israel (Lev 16:24, 30,33), just as Christ concludes his atonement by offering communal forgiveness: "Father, forgive them."

Ancient Israelite atonement theology makes no sense if not understood in the light of communal guilt theology. (Another quick example, all Israel is punished for the sins of a single man in Josh 7:10-26.)

Whatever, Bill. You just believe in this "communal guilt" nonsense because you're a filthy communist.

[WalkerW]

Excellent. I really need to devote more attention to Rabbinic commentary. This is a unique speciality that you have. I'm not aware of anyone in the Church with as strong a background in Rabbinics as you possess; it really is its own entity and no one has yet pursued these issues seriously in connection with the Book of Mormon, etc. We're really fortunate to have you.

I second this (though David would know better regarding LDS scholarship).

But I've never seen such relevant material pulled from Rabbinic commentaries as I have seen with Volgadon. He has been a wealth of information, an excellent example of a Latter-day Saint, and a really good friend.

We love ya, brother.

[Robert F. Smith]

This is a very nice thread, and I look forward to the books and articles which should be forthcoming from both Bokovoy and Hamblin.

I especially like the idea of blood as a

[Ron Beron]

Blood, in and of itself, has no

[zerinus]

Have you looked at Bill Hamblin

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, I did have a look at Bill Hamblin

[zerinus]

I have never before read or heard such a statement about the purpose or function of the Temple in Jerusalem in Jesus' day. Could you please provide (cite) the sources from which you have obtained this completely unique viewpoint? That is, the notion that the primary function of the Temple was synagogue instruction rather than daily, continual sacrificial rites conducted by the Aaronic priesthood. And the notion that Jesus was teaching inside rather than at (adjacent to) the Temple itself.

I gave you the scriptural references. What was there about those references that you didn't understand?

I didn't say that serving as a place of instruction was the "primary purpose" of the temple, or that those other sacrificial rites were not performed in it a well; but that it served that particular purpose too, hence Jesus spending most of His time at Jerusalem teaching the Jews at the temple. Jacob in the Book of Mormon does the same.

[Robert F. Smith]

I gave you the scriptural references. What was there about those references that you didn't understand?

I didn't say that serving as a place of instruction was the "primary purpose" of the temple, or that those other sacrificial rites were not performed in it a well; but that it served that particular purpose too, hence Jesus spending most of His time at Jerusalem teaching the Jews at the temple. Jacob in the Book of Mormon does the same.

In Jerusalem today, as in ancient times, the Temple Mount (Arabic Haram es-Sherif "Noble Sanctuary") is a huge and spacious area. Perhaps you have been there and know this, and are not trying to suggest that the areas adjacent to the Temple where Jesus taught and merchants changed money from Roman to Jewish for Temple tax purposes, and also sold animals and fowl for the sacrificial rites, was not meant to be confused with the Temple precincts/temenos where formal sacrificial ritual was conducted. These were very separate areas and functions.

Perhaps your claims that Jesus' going there and instructing people was simply meant as regular rabbinic activity, but your claim that it was tantamount to going to regular church meetings is just silly. There were plenty of synagogues for that purpose throughout Jerusalem, even including a synagogue adjacent to the Temple. No one I know within Mormonism confuses the two very separate concepts and functions.

A native Jerusalemite reading the Gospels would not misunderstand the scriptures you cited because of the clearcut context. If sacrificial rites are being conducted within the sacred Temple precincts, the context should tell us that. If only instruction is being given adjacent to the temple, that should also be clear from the context.

In Mosiah 1 - 6, for example, it is explicitly stated that sacrificial ritual will take place (Mos 2:3), in addition to a special speech by King Benjamin. Is that all? By no means!! There is a formal ritual of coregency for his son, Mosiah II, and a formal oath & covenant made by the people (Mos 5:2-9). One non-Mormon scholar who took a serious look at it concluded that it entailed the Jewish New Year (day of coronation), days of awe, and day of atonement. Some others (including me) find it to have been a combined Fall Feast of Ingathering and New Year. Some formal (even written) instruction certainly goes along with it, What is truly remarkable is the formal covenant-treaty structure of the whole speech (demonstrated by Stephen Ricks).

You need to familiarize yourself with the scholarly literature on this general subject, rather than falsely claiming that LDS scholarship is somehow substandard.

[zerinus]

In Jerusalem today, as in ancient times, the Temple Mount (Arabic Haram es-Sherif "Noble Sanctuary") is a huge and spacious area. Perhaps you have been there and know this, and are not trying to suggest that the areas adjacent to the Temple where Jesus taught and merchants changed money from Roman to Jewish for Temple tax purposes, and also sold animals and fowl for the sacrificial rites, was not meant to be confused with the Temple precincts/temenos where formal sacrificial ritual was conducted. These were very separate areas and functions.

Perhaps your claims that Jesus' going there and instructing people was simply meant as regular rabbinic activity, but your claim that it was tantamount to going to regular church meetings is just silly. There were plenty of synagogues for that purpose throughout Jerusalem, even including a synagogue adjacent to the Temple. No one I know within Mormonism confuses the two very separate concepts and functions.

A native Jerusalemite reading the Gospels would not misunderstand the scriptures you cited because of the clearcut context. If sacrificial rites are being conducted within the sacred Temple precincts, the context should tell us that. If only instruction is being given adjacent to the temple, that should also be clear from the context.

In Mosiah 1 - 6, for example, it is explicitly stated that sacrificial ritual will take place (Mos 2:3), in addition to a special speech by King Benjamin. Is that all? By no means!! There is a formal ritual of coregency for his son, Mosiah II, and a formal oath & covenant made by the people (Mos 5:2-9). One non-Mormon scholar who took a serious look at it concluded that it entailed the Jewish New Year (day of coronation), days of awe, and day of atonement. Some others (including me) find it to have been a combined Fall Feast of Ingathering and New Year. Some formal (even written) instruction certainly goes along with it, What is truly remarkable is the formal covenant-treaty structure of the whole speech (demonstrated by Stephen Ricks).

You need to familiarize yourself with the scholarly literature on this general subject, rather than falsely claiming that LDS scholarship is somehow substandard.

I don't know what you are getting at, or confusing the issue. The scripture says that Jesus want in the temple to peach, not outside of the temple; and the Jews went in the temple to hear him, not outside of the temple. Exactly where "in" the temple that took place is irrelevant. Jesus preached in the synagogues too, but when He was in Jerusalem, the scripture says that He spent most of the time in the temple preaching, and the Jews went there to listen to Him. The scriptures about that are perfectly clear. I have quoted them for you to save you the trouble. You don't need to look them up. You can read them up there in my post. If you have an issue with that, then you have an issue with the scriptures, not with me.

Jacob is a slightly different situation because, as I said, they were only a handful of people, and they had one temple that served the purpose of a temple as well a synagogue, so they all went there to listen to him to preach. In the time of Jesus the Jews had many synagogues to go to; but Jesus apparently spent most of his time in the temple; and those Jews who were interested in hearing Him went there to listen to Him. That is made perfectly clear from the references I had given.

[volgadon]

Excellent. I really need to devote more attention to Rabbinic commentary. This is a unique speciality that you have. I'm not aware of anyone in the Church with as strong a background in Rabbinics as you possess; it really is its own entity and no one has yet pursued these issues seriously in connection with the Book of Mormon, etc. We're really fortunate to have you.

Thank you. A lot of LDS scholars have worked with rabbinics though, so I would probably say that I have a somewhat different POV. I like the Metzudot because they are a good summary of Jewish commentaries, and since they were meant for a wide audience, don't stray far from the plain reading. Surprisingly enough, they are often spot on, considering that they were written in the 17th century.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't know what you are getting at, or confusing the issue. The scripture says that Jesus want in the temple to peach, not outside of the temple; and the Jews went in the temple to hear him, not outside of the temple. Exactly where "in" the temple that took place is irrelevant. Jesus preached in the synagogues too, but when He was in Jerusalem, the scripture says that He spent most of the time in the temple preaching, and the Jews went there to listen to Him. The scriptures about that are perfectly clear. I have quoted them for you to save you the trouble. You don't need to look them up. You can read them up there in my post. If you have an issue with that, then you have an issue with the scriptures, not with me.

Jacob is a slightly different situation because, as I said, they were only a handful of people, and they had one temple that served the purpose of a temple as well a synagogue, so they all went there to listen to him to preach. In the time of Jesus the Jews had many synagogues to go to; but Jesus apparently spent most of his time in the temple; and those Jews who were interested in hearing Him went there to listen to Him. That is made perfectly clear from the references I had given.

You are completely mistaken due perhaps to your apparent belief that the New Testament was written in English. You should have consulted the Greek text.

In every case in the NT where you have quoted the English translation as having Jesus going in(to) the Temple to teach he is merely going to areas adjacent to the Temple, such as at Solomon's Porch, which was an area adjacent to the Temple shaded by collonades (stoa) and a roof (John 10:23).

In the KJV at least, two separate Greek words are both translated "temple," but only one of them means the actual temple edifice -- that is naos -- and Jesus never teaches there. The priests would not allow it anyhow. The word for the area around the temple was hieron. That was where Jesus and other rabbis could teach their disciples. Perhaps not unlike taking some people for a lecture on the lawn in front of an LDS Temple.

[David Bokovoy]

Yes, I did have a look at Bill Hamblin

[David Bokovoy]

You are completely mistaken due perhaps to your apparent belief that the New Testament was written in English. You should have consulted the Greek text.

In every case in the NT where you have quoted the English translation as having Jesus going in(to) the Temple to teach he is merely going to areas adjacent to the Temple, such as at Solomon's Porch, which was an area adjacent to the Temple shaded by collonades (stoa) and a roof (John 10:23).

In the KJV at least, two separate Greek words are both translated "temple," but only one of them means the actual temple edifice -- that is naos -- and Jesus never teaches there. The priests would not allow it anyhow. The word for the area around the temple was hieron. That was where Jesus and other rabbis could teach their disciples. Perhaps not unlike taking some people for a lecture on the lawn in front of an LDS Temple.

Thank you, Robert. This is very helpful.

[zerinus]

At the risk of sounding insincere, it really is very unfortunate that you have been so dismissive and failed to capture how impressive Bill's observations prove.

I trust that he is wiser than you are; but I could be wrong.

Just an interesting observation, but the way you blur the distinction between temple versus church/synagogue perfectly parallels the way you espouse scriptural inerrancy. Once again, yours is a very evangelical approach. Compare your view concerning the purpose of Nephite gatherings at the temple with Joseph Smith's:

[David Bokovoy]

One would have to make oneself deaf, dumb, and blind to fail to see that.

Don't feel bad, I have it on good authority that despite these challenges, you sure play a mean pinball.

[zerinus]

Don't feel bad, I have it on good authority that despite these challenges, you sure play a mean pinball.

LOL!

[J Green]

Don't feel bad, I have it on good authority that despite these challenges, you sure play a mean pinball.

From Soho down to Brighton . . . Sweet!

[volgadon]

Don't feel bad, I have it on good authority that despite these challenges, you sure play a mean pinball.

Best post in this thread. One of my absolute favourite bands.

And it is great that Zerinus can take a joke.

[volgadon]

But like it or not, that is the main purpose for which Jesus used it during His ministry at the times that He spent in Jerusalem, and presumably so did the Rabbis. That is written in black and white all over the face of the four gospels.

Jesus during his mortal ministry did not play the role of an earthly priest. Jacob did. That is the main difference.

[volgadon]

I second this (though David would know better regarding LDS scholarship).

But I've never seen such relevant material pulled from Rabbinic commentaries as I have seen with Volgadon. He has been a wealth of information, an excellent example of a Latter-day Saint, and a really good friend.

We love ya, brother.

Thank you, Walker.

[volgadon]

Jacob 1:

17 Wherefore I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having first obtained mine errand from the Lord.

Jacob 2:

2 Now, my beloved brethren, I, Jacob, according to the responsibility which I am under to God, to magnify mine office with soberness, and that I might rid my garments of your sins, I come up into the temple this day that I might declare unto you the word of God.

Now a very surprising thing is related of this high priest Hyrcanus, how God came to discourse with him; for they say that on the very same day on which his sons fought with Antiochus Cyzicenus, he was alone in the temple, as high priest, offering incense, and heard a voice, that his sons had just then overcome Antiochus. And this he openly declared before all the multitude upon his coming out of the temple; and it accordingly proved true; and in this posture were the affairs of Hyrcanus.

-Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 13.10, 3.

Jacob 2:

11 Wherefore, I must tell you the truth according to the plainness of the word of God. For behold, as I inquired of the Lord, thus came the word unto me, saying: Jacob, get thou up into the temple on the morrow, and declare the word which I shall give thee unto this people.

Whereupon God warned him in a dream, which came upon him after he had offered sacrifice, that he should take courage, and adorn the city, and open the gates; that the rest should appear in white garments, but that he and the priests should meet the king in the habits proper to their order, without the dread of any ill consequences, which the providence of God would prevent. Upon which, when he rose from his sleep, he greatly rejoiced, and declared to all the warning he had received from God. According to which dream he acted entirely, and so waited for the coming of the king.

-Josephus, Antiquites, 11.8, 4.

Jacob doesn

[volgadon]

I've been working on a paper on Jacob's sermon as a Day of Atonement ritual. Here's the outline.

08 Jacob Day Atonement.pdf

Very nice. I might have another source or two for you to check out.

[Bill Hamblin]

Very nice. I might have another source or two for you to check out.

Great! I'd love to see them. Thanks