A Question for Agricola

[zeek]

Agricola, I've been pondering something lately and would like your thoughts on it. As I understand it, the Ark of the Covenant was never restored to the second or third temple in Jerusalem following the return from exile. So, that being the case, what did the priests do about the blood offering that was supposed to be made at the mercy seat?

[B.H.]

That's a good question Zeek I've wondered that too.

[agricola]

If there is one thing Jews are, it is deeply practical.
If something isn't around, then obviously, you can't do whatever it is.

So we don't. We read about doing it instead. Sometimes, we substitute something else - typically making charitable donations. So that's very likely too.

Now, I do not KNOW what was done in the Second Temple, which existed from roughly 440 BCE to 70 CE (around five hundred years) but I do know the Ark wasn't there, and the Holy of Holies was empty.

Probably some scholarly folks who study the Talmud (which describes in excruciating detail was WAS done, what was SUPPOSED to be done, and what presumably someday BE done) might actually know, but my best real guess is: it was simply not done, because the necessary object wasn't available. So it was READ about (probably out loud), and that was that.

We STILL read about (mention in prayers, etc) the whole shebang and then pray for the restoration of the Temple. Daily. It's been two thousand plus years now, but hey, who cares?

[agricola]

P.S., the third temple hasn't been built yet.

[zeek]

P.S., the third temple hasn't been built yet.

So, do we count the temple that was erected by Ezra and Herod's temple as one and the same??? Exactly how does that work? I thought they were distinctly different structures.

[agricola]

So, do we count the temple that was erected by Ezra and Herod's temple as one and the same??? Exactly how does that work? I thought they were distinctly different structures.

Yes, Herod's temple is not considered a NEW temple, but a (fairly radical and complete) REMODELING on Ezra's Temple.

Sort of like, if you own your home, and you completely remodel it AND enlarge it by, say, 100% - it is still 'my house', not 'a new house', right?

So when we say 'the Second Temple period', for instance, or 'Second Temple Judaism' (which is different from today, BUT ALSO different from 'Biblical Judaism' pre-Ezra, we are talking about the entire period from Ezra's rebuilding in the fifth century BCE, to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE - right at about a five hundred year period.

Judaism changed a fair bit during that time, so when 'the OT' ends you are in the PRE-Second Temple period, just about (the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are at the very start of Second Temple period) and when the NT STARTS you are almost at the very END of the Second Temple period.

A LOT had changed, which the NT never admits or mentions (no real reason why it should, but it ought to raise questions, which it rarely ever does).

continued in next post

[agricola]

Once the Temple was destroyed, Judaism changed AGAIN, into what we now call 'rabbinic Judaism', which is every single variety of modern Judaism in the world today, really. Rabbinic Judaism is synagogue oriented, text/study oriented, and arose mostly out of the Pharisaic philosophical school of late Second Temple Judaism.

Second Temple Judaism was heavily Sadducee for most of the period - a theological priestly - dominated oligarchic system with a strong caste system (priest, levite, ordinary isrealite). The development of the Pharisaic philosophy parallels that in time, but not in 'ideas', Pharisaism was a democratic, meritocratic movement, among the 'israelite' group - everybody who wasn't high caste, basically), with a fair bit of mystic apocalyptic thought (at the time - that's mostly gone) and that is where you find ideas about Judgement Day, the End of Time, a coming Messiah, etc.
The short lived Hasmonean (Maccabees) kingdom was actually Sadducee led, but it had a lot of Pharisaic 'messianic' impulses behind it as well. Later Rabbinic Judaism viewed the Hasmoneans as problematic, since they put a priest on the throne - that was a big break with long-expected hopes for restoration of the dynasty of David ('the messiah'). ALSO, of course, the later Hasmoneans invited the Romans in, first as 'advisors' (I hope people are getting a deja vu here about the US in Vietnam, by the way) which encroached their way to direct rule with a century - and THAT led to continual popular (i.e., Pharisaic mostly) violent uprisings and rebellions - because, hey, it happened before, right? The Hasmoneans drove away the Seleucid kings (Persians/Hellenized Persians) and re-established local rule. Why couldn't that happen again? - but the Romans were not quite so easy to discourage and a lot more powerful at the time, as well).

and continuing again -

[agricola]

Christianity ALSO rose up out of the Pharisaic movement, as long as it stayed within Jewish circles - but frankly Christianity - once it moved into 'gentile' groups - is strongly colored by a whole lot of Hellenistic (Greek, Roman) philosophy, like the dichotomy between 'matter' and 'spirit', immortality of souls, and an eternal hell. Satan and legions of angels/demons is most likely from Zoroastrianism - probably so is the 'end of world' armageddon (which is Hebrew: Har Megiddo - the mountain (pass) of Megiddo was the historical location for any number of major battles - it is the most defensible, critical pass on the main road from Mesopotamian empires to the Egyptian empire, for millenia).

[zeek]

Thank you for investing your time in such an in-depth answer to my questions. I genuinely appreciate it. I exactly "get" what you are saying about Herod's temple replacing Ezra's but at the same time technically being the same. I had some friends who bought an old farm house and wanted to tear the old house down and build a new one on the site. Due to lot size restrictions in place at the time the county refused to issue a permit to build a new house but they could remodel the old house as long as one original wall was left and that would be legal. So, now they have a new house with one old wall in one gable end.
Presumably, then, should the third temple ever be built in Jerusalem we would expect Judaism to morph yet again. I suppose we would expect it to revert back to something more akin to second temple Judaism? I wonder would global Jews be required to make annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices at the restored altar?

[agricola]

That's it in theory - there are even some small (VERY small!) groups of Jews who have reconstructed all the necessary tools for resuming sacrifices, and every few years, news comes out about a red heifer being born (most of them don't STAY all red, but develop black or white spots eventually), which is a necessary item for creating the required purification material for priests.

Some assume in a messianic golden age, we won't NEED animal sacrifices, and only the fruit and grain (produce of the field) sacrifices will be brought to the restored temple. Other people think we are past the point of finding the whole Temple sacrificial center useful at all, and humans are 'grown past' needing it at all.

Most Jews don't really bother to think about it at all - the messiah is like Godot: we are ALWAYS waiting, and he never comes.

But basically - really - MOST Jews simply assume that all those decisions can wait until AFTER the messiah gets here, and THEN he'll decide! Not our circus, not our monkeys: he's the messiah, let him deal with it.