Page 88 - Advanced Biblical Backgrounds Revised

Temples Afire

Temples were the focal point of civic life and the target for invaders. The patron deities of the city were
believed to dwell in the temples. Festivals were held around temples and valuables were deposited in
them (they were actually the earliest banks).

For invaders, the capture of the central temple served several purposes, not the least of which was
obtaining the wealth stored there. To take the temple was also to show that the gods of the city had
chosen the conquerors over the local inhabitants. This meant that the conquerors were now the
legitimate rulers of the people, land, and any possessions.

The burning of the central temple was a declaration of unconditional victory. Often it was the location
of the last stand of resistance. Only if the gods of the city had abandoned that city to its fate would they
allow their own home to be destroyed. When Sennacherib destroyed Babylon and the temple of
Marduk in 689 B.C., he claimed to have done so on behalf of Marduk, who wished to punish his people
for their evil behavior.

The captors were understood to have free rein with the city and its populace. The defeated city had no
gods to whom they might appeal for mercy and no hope for a change in their fate. Their gods were
believed to have moved to the capital of the victors, where they became patrons of the kings of that
city.

The Book of Lamentations says the same thing about Nebuchadnezzar II burning Jerusalem and its
temple in 586 B.C. (2 Kings 25:9). Yahweh, Himself, had become Judah’s enemy (Lam. 2:5) and
destroyed His own temple – His “tabernacle” and “place of assembly” (2:6). With Yahweh’s permission,
Judah’s enemy now “made a noise in the house of the Lord.” (2:7).

nd
Later in history, we will see Titus attack Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and destroy the 2 temple located in the
City of David. Jesus predicted this destruction in Matthew 24:2, claiming that “not one stone will be left
on another; everyone will be thrown down.”

rd
According to Eusebius, a 3 -century historian, said, “The hill called Zion and Jerusalem, the building
there, that is to say, the temple, has been utterly removed or shaken.” 124 This means completely
destroyed or utterly gone. As Christ prophesied, “Not one stone shall be left upon another that shall
not be thrown down.”

Josephus (who was alive at the time of the destruction of the temple) said, “It was so thoroughly laid
even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make
those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited.” 125 Eleazer Ben Jair, the commander at
Masada, wrote, “It (Jerusalem) is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing left but that
monument of it preserved, I mean the camps of those Romans that hath destroyed it, which still dwells
upon its ruins.” 126

124 http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_10_book8.htm
125 http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jewishtemple.htm
126 http://www.netours.com/content/view/27/29/

87