Why would God want the defeat of Japha and other cities rebelling against Rome in 66-70? (Solved)

rakovsky said:

Sure, I can see that the victors in wars tend to lie, misportray events, or spin them to make themselves look good, Pinacled. Actually in Wars of the Jews he makes both sides sound unpleasant. For example, the way he describes the Romans slaughtering civilians does not sound nice. Josephus is not happy about the Temple's destruction by Rome either, even though he describes omens for it.

Also, there is what you say in the way that Rome conquered enemies. A good example is the way that they crushed the Britons after defeating Boudicca's forces. In any case, as to the OP, there was a battle at Japha with contending armies, with the troops of Japha attacking Rome first. I suppose that you imagine that Josephus made that up, but I think that Japha really was one of the rebellious cities, since for example there were other cities in Galilee like Sepphoris that were not in rebellion and weren't crushed by Rome. In your view did the Roman conquest not fit with God's desires.

Click to expand...

Read closer,
Only a rebellion is described by falvius who betrayed his inheritance in part by adopting a name sake with preposition that he, the writer is a "jew.?

In part the author held back in certain descriptive details.
Perhaps the author was discreetly conveying a message of tact without his Roman enemy knowing. Reminds me of how ole sh'aul and how he spoke and wrote letters of new moon and Shabbat with wisdom. With Wisdom from above I image he was forewarned that the letters will be intercepted.
Then with edoms(Rome) intercepting ole sh'aul letters and attempt to interpret what he was speaking with hope,.
I was further reminded of what kefa forewarned...


Blessings Always

rakovsky said:

Let me list reasons that I came across, in order to get your thoughts on them:

1. Josephus saw the writings of Daniel, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel in the Bible as pointing to the Roman conquest. So you could theorize that the nation had been making the same kinds of violations that had led tot he Babylonian captivity.
   
2. One theory goes that the 490 years of Daniel 9's prophecy and the 70 years of the Babylonian captivity were based on the nation's failure to observe the 7 year sowing cycle. Under this theory, the nation had failed to observe the sowing cycle in the decades leading up to both the Roman and Babylonian conquests.
3. Origen says that Josephus attributed the Temple's destruction to the killing of Jesus' brother James, but that Josephus should have looked for the cause of it in Jesus' death. In fact, Josephus narrates both the killing of Jesus and James as among the troublesome events in Books 18-20 of his Antiquities that led to the Temple's destruction.
4. At least some rabbis associated the prophecy in Daniel 9 with the destruction of 70 AD. How do the rabbis explain the failure of the revolt, with regards to the Lord's wishes? Do they address the issue?
5. If I were to try to take a secular, non-religious examination, I could say that Rome's forces vastly outweighed the Jewish rebels'. Look at how severely the Romans defeated even massive Briton forces belonging to Boudicca in the same era. It would be unlikely strategically for the Jewish revolt to defeat the Roman forces in the war even under normal circumstances, not accounting for divine intervention. So you could say that it didn't have to do with God's wishes really, and that it was just an issue of a much larger, skilled, or stronger army defeating a weaker one.
6. John the Baptist preached that the axe was laid to the tree even before Yeshua started His ministry. The tree is one of the images for ancient Israel in the Bible. John's preaching seemed to be aimed primarily at repentance and morality. So there must have been reasons, particularly moral ones, for the catastrophe even before Yeshua arrived publicly in His ministry. But were Jews in the early 1st century really so much more immoral than in other periods of time, or compared generally with other ancient nations of their period?
7. Some users on the forum already pointed to Torah as a key factor in the event, since the Torah promised rewards or catastrophe based on how well it was observed. But in that case, what violations of the Torah were so strong as to bring about the disaster, the defeat of the cities, and the Temple's ruination?
8. Josephus claims that the Romans were tolerant toward Judaism and acted with restraint regarding the Temple services. If that is true it would be harder morally to advocate for a religious revolt against a powerful empire that would bring major casualties, when the Romans were supposedly allowing the Jews to do their own thing in terms of observance. Judaism was a recognized permitted religion in the empire. But were the Romans really tolerant enough of Judaism?
9. One Messianic believer, who apparently looked sympathetically on the revolt, replied to me that God could have imposed the defeat in order to scatter the Jews among the nations so that they would spread knowledge of Judaism. But that seems more like Christian evangelists' theory for early persecution of Christians in Judea - ie. the local persecution goaded the evangelizing Christian believers to scatter abroad more - than a justification that the defeated rebels themselves would make.
10. Maybe to discern God's reasons you could compare the ideal situation with the less pleasant reality in Judea. In the ideal situation, the nation would be observing Torah, the Shmita cycle, avoiding pointless internecine strife and the kind of immorality that Yeshua criticized, it would have national independence as well as religious liberty with the priestly line performing in the Temple under a Davidic descendant. As I understand it, the Judean leadership in the 1st century BC-AD rejected the legitimate priestly line that belonged to Onias IV, who became a refugee in Egypt where he set up his own Temple. The leaders like the Maccabbean rulers also were not really interested in inviting back the Davidic descendants to rule over them. I am not teaching my own view however with this Factor (Point #10), but rather inviting you to contrast the ideal situation with the reality in order to find possible divine reasons for the defeat.

Click to expand...

Quite the contrary.
As much as is conveyed by the historian of supposed jewish heritage' informed.

The enemy pervervously used Torah observance to find a tactical advantage.

If I recall correctly Yeshau was convicted to death under a Roman court of law where a fixed vote at a praetorium claimed authority.

A familiar form of government where the vote of voices are bribed and silenced if mammon is not involved.
Hence a judiciary who convicts according to popular opinion, rules then washes their hands of guilt while even their wife warns of consequence.

Bribing courts to murder innocent lives is not to far from oppressing the poor so that a false kings court is built by a stranger.

There was once 2 sons of Samuel who did the same.
And many a supposed levite have done so in the past as the edomite do today with a perversion of demanding both tithes and worship.

Bless those that curse

rakovsky said:

I read Josephus' Wars of the Jews, and his Testimonium about Yeshua makes me think that he was probably a Messianic Jew. He ascribes the Romans' defeat of Japha and the First Century Jewish revolt to the Lord's will, but it isn't clear to me what reasons the Lord would have for that defeat. You don't have to agree with Josephus, and I know that it can be hard to discern the Lord's motives and involvement. But I think that Messianic believers might have insight into the underlined topic, due to their special dedication to Jewish traditions. So I would like to please ask how you might address that question?

In Book II, Chapter 16, Josephus recites Herod Agrippa II's speech to a Jewish audience, encouraging them to avoid war. After laying out the Romans' military prowess, he says:

Herod Agrippa II is saying that (A) the Lord must be on the Romans' side because they built up such a vast empire. (B) The rebels can't both observe the Torah and win, because if they rest on the Sabbath they will be defeated like under Pompey, and if they fight on the Sabbath, they will violate the Torah. (C) The rebels should avoid war to spare the Temple, because the Romans will ruin it, since the Romans will see that the rebels ignored the Romans' past restraint. (D) Rebellion carries tremendous peril, and the rebels would be carried away by their Passions if they rebelled.

I am not asking you to agree with, or even respond to, Herod Agrippa II's arguments. Just because an empire is vast doesn't mean the Lord supports it; generally, empires eventually collapse. Maybe the Lord could give an exception to resting on the Torah in war time. Instead, I am interested in your own answer to the question in the thread title. Please read my Message #7 below, where I quote Josephus' passage about Japha. (Why would the Lord want the defeat of Japha and other cities rebelling against Rome in 66-70 AD?)

Click to expand...

You seem to be neglecting the fact that in one of His parables, our Lord referred to the Roman armies as His armies.

7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Matthew 22:7

In this parable "the king" clearly represents God. So in this parable our Lord was calling the Roman armies the armies of God.

rakovsky said:

Interesting take. I hadn't thought of that. When Daniel 9 said that the people of the prince to come would destroy the Temple, I thought of the Romans being the people of the coming prince, Vespasian. (not that he was the Messiah but that he was a coming prince).
But conceivably the Lord can use different armies to achieve His will.

Click to expand...

In like manner, consider a passage from Isaiah 10.

5 "Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation. 6 I will send him against an ungodly nation, And against the people of My wrath I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets. 7 Yet he does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations. Isaiah 10:5-7

This Assyrian will be God's agent. But he does not intend to be. So God will punish him for doing what God wanted done.

rakovsky said:

That makes sense, Ye.HaDerekh.
May I please ask what you see as factors or reasons, if any, that would make the Lord impose the Roman conquest?

Click to expand...

I don't think HE "imposed" it but removed his protection to allow it. It is said that the sages knew the destruction of the temple was coming as a result of God’s judgment for ungodliness. There were supernatural signs listed in the Talmud from 30 AD to 70 AD (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).

1). The lot for the Lord’s goat did not come up in the right hand of the priest (or only black and never white). During the two hundred years before 30 AD, when the High Priest picked one of two stones the selection was governed by chance, and each year the priest would select a black stone as often as a white stone. But for forty years in a row, beginning in 30 AD, the High Priest always picked the black stone.

2). The scarlet cord tied to the door of the temple on the Day of Atonement stopped turning white (Isaiah 1:18) after the scapegoat had been cast over the precipice. (Talmud-Mas-Rosh Hashana 31b)

3). The western most light of the temple menorah would not burn. That light was used to light the other lights of the menorah.

4). The temple doors would open by themselves. The opening of the doors to let in a consuming fire foretold the destruction of the temple itself by fire.

Rabbi Yohanan Ben Zakkai (Sota 6:3 in the Yerushalyim talmud) said to the Temple, "O Temple, why do you frighten us? We know that you will end up destroyed. For it has been said, open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars" (Zechariah 11:1).

rakovsky said:

I understand that there were these signs - you did a good job showing them. But I am still trying to see the reasons that God would have had. For example, what was their ungodliness that you refer to?

Someone has suggested that it was because they violated Torah rituals because of the equivalent of Orthodox Jews today making accidental contact with something of the equivalent of Reform Jews (ie. Hellenistic Jews). But this does not seem very persuasive to me. I doubt that God wanted First Century Jews to be that OCD about Torah. The negligence of the Shmita cycle would make some sense.

Another reason that Josephus seems to suggest is that much of the rebel force was involved in internecine fighting and criminal abuses like robbery and killing political opponents.

The NT gives the idea that it was for immorality (as per John the Baptist's explanation about the axe and the tree), and for rejecting Yeshua as the Messiah as per Luke's quote earlier in this thread.

These last two seem like two of the best explanations - the rejection and death of Yeshua, persecution of the apostles, even James' death could be a factor, and also the criminality among the rebels, although Josephus is a biased sources on that topic.

Click to expand...

I have heard the Shmita cycle explanation and it makes sense since the land DID rest for almost 1900 yrs. I have read many different Jewish explanations, some making more sense than others. I think the ungodliness was their terrible treatment of each other. Barbarity, thievery, murder, etc...

rakovsky said:

I understand that there were these signs - you did a good job showing them. But I am still trying to see the reasons that God would have had. For example, what was their ungodliness that you refer to?

Click to expand...

Jesus clearly stated it.It was God's judgement because they rejected Jesus when He came.

Biblewriter said:

You seem to be neglecting the fact that in one of His parables, our Lord referred to the Roman armies as His armies.

7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Matthew 22:7

In this parable "the king" clearly represents God. So in this parable our Lord was calling the Roman armies the armies of God.

Click to expand...

Where ever did you find such an inflection.

The current standing temple during Our Lord Yeshua's ministry was never called to be or asked to have been constructed.

What was destroyed was a representation of oppression upon the poor during an argument between principalities of 2 tyrannical empires that were once allies.
A roman emperor and false king lineage of Judea.
Just as was in the past the levitical priesthood in its service had been both restricted and perverted with bribes and partiality in order to hold a grip on resources.
Caste system rules of law are thousands of yrs in the making that are forewarned about by The Most High and only Holy One of The Kingdom.

I strongly suggest that a person abstain from attributing evil rendered with evil to The Lord Yeshua.

Bless those that curse

Biblewriter said:

Jesus clearly stated it.It was God's judgement because they rejected Jesus when He came.

Click to expand...

No,
Consider the current relative history where greco/roman occultation has been established as a false established authority under a banner of war?

True,
Our Lord of Host is sovereign.
But again,
Attributing darkness to the The Lord of Lights is unwarranted.

Yes,
Yeshua gave fair warning of judae and its punishment for breaking covenant.
Even so the eternal bond is still freely offered generation after generation.....to The Whole of Yisrayl.
And if I recall correctly ole sh'aul spoke in The Spirit of Wisdom about this..

Boast against or curse Yisrayl and the Outcome remains the same..

But what do I know..

The scriptures repeatedly call the evil acts of invading armies, acts of God. So Jesus calling the Roman armies His armies is nothing new.

Biblewriter said:

The scriptures repeatedly call the evil acts of invading armies, acts of God. So Jesus calling the Roman armies His armies is nothing new.

Click to expand...

How many days have you been taught to mourn in the Spirit?



{Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!}

pinacled said:

How many days have you been taught to mourn in the Spirit?



{Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!}

Click to expand...

Personal comments do not answer scriptures.

Biblewriter said:

Personal comments do not answer scriptures.

Click to expand...

Oh,
How so in time have you acknowledged an habitation in The True Vine.

Faith without work's , of fellowship is?

While charity in wisdom from above is given those who ask for material to raise a tent.
They offer clarity to those whose charity is both uneaded and unwelcome.

A limit of words reminds me of a tradition taught concerning a bridled tongue.

A relationship in the Body of Yeshua is very much personal.

Except of course for those who seek derision. For those outside the camp.
They call darkness light and refuse the sheep gate with a forcefull spirit.
Without a witness the arrogance of overcoming sin consumes their every thought..

After Sorcerors have snare trapped the weak and burdened them vows, creeds, and oaths to serve guile. Mammon seals the victims their fate.
A fate where no son or daughter is allowed to escape after receiving such a mark..

2 fold destruction is enitivable after such action.

A sad day