The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Taylor, Randy Danielson, TAFrazer, PNCC Random Guy, Coldstream
5,769 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (theophan), 69 guests, and 31 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,056
Posts414,078
Members5,769
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
RayK Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
The following is just a meditation... nothing more.

From King David through to the Babylonian exile, all the Kings of Israel, all those who sat on the throne, were Son’s of David. Appointed by the last king (who himself has held the title Son of David prior to asending the throne) a next Son of David would be appointed by the last Son of David. Not necessarily the first born son in time (Nathan was born first in time but Solomon born the 10th prince of David was appointed by David as the Son of David and next to ascend the throne) . For the term Son of David means more to the modern ear if we say the First Prince out of all other princes. And each Son of David had the duty to appoint out of all his sons and nephews - that First Prince, that finest fruit, who would ascend the throne next after himself.

In Matthew's traces of the Sons of David ("This is the generation of Jesus Son of David") Matthew lists Jeconiah as the last legitimate Davidic prince to actually sit upon the throne of Israel. Dragged into exile in Babylon, his own son Salathiel never occupies the throne and dies childless therefore Jeconiah appoints Zerrbable (a nephew by the line of Nathan) as the next Son of David and the only legitimate prince whom has divine right to ascend the throne after him.

From the exile in Babylon on - no other proper Son of David occupies the throne of Israel. No other Son of David is coroneted as king. Untill Jesus, corenated by Pilate, unon the cross by his legal proclaimation "This is the King of the Jews".

Beginning with the return from Babylon and the rebuilding of the Temple… just in the same way as the Second Temple would never house the holy objects (the Ark, the Rod of Aaron, the cup of manna, the original book of Genesis and the tablets of the Ten Words, etc..) the throne of Israel was never again occupied by a legitimate Son of David. Instead, over the many years to Christ - foreign powers appointed puppet kings and Israelite generals and powerful Jewish family staged coups.

The way to remove a ‘house’ from authority - is to slaughter its males. And so it was often that when some Israelite (non-Davidic) slaughtered his way into power by killing all males of the ‘house’ in current power - a princess, a daughter of David, who could be traced to the Davidic line and blood - would be left alive and forced to marry the son of the illegitimate king, by which, a son by the marriage would cement the ‘house’ of the illegitimate king to legitimacy. In other words that ‘house’ would be grafted into the Davidic line when her son became King.

Thus it apparently was the Caiaphas (a son-prince of Herod and may have been what we call a nephew) was the offspring of a legitimate daughter of the House of Levi whom had been wed into the House of Herod. Making Caiaphas a legitimate High Priest.

During the years between Babylon and Christ - it was not safe to be publicly known as the Son of David. Many of these Son’s of David as recorded by Mathew - had been hunted down and killed so as to remove any threat to the ‘house’ in power. Therefore the Son of David would appoint the next Son of David - in secret - the record being kept only by those in the Temple still loyal to the Davidic line.

Therefore, it was shocking, that Jesus, called himself in public - the Son of David… because it meant that only he - had legitimate claim to the throne on which Herod (son of Herod the Great) sat. It was - bold to say the least.

Thus, being publicly recognized as the Son of David brought about the social possibility that a popular revolt against Herod and the Roman occupation - a revolt which would sweep the legitimate Son of David to the throne - might just happen. In fact day by day - this possibility became more real and Jesus gained in public recognition.

In the mind of human politics, such a revolt, would not only dispose those who were in the seat of Jewish authority, but according to their own methods - would probably result in a bloodbath carried out by the population to cleanse Israel. While the Zelots thought this could be successful (they had already resorted to murder) those in authority who knew the power of Rome saw this type of event as the end of Israel and a slaughter of the Jewish people as Rome ended the ‘Jewish question’ once and for all. It would be the end of Israel as a nation - and a horrible end to those now seated in plush positions of Jewish power.

If we stand in the position of Herod and Caiaphas - and use their eyes - we can understand it when Caiaphas convinces powerful member of the Sanhedrin that it is expedient that one man die in order to save the lives of the nation. If the population swept Jesus onto the throne via revolt - surly the whole sale slaughter of Jews by a Roman army would take place. And the most dangerous moment would be when Jerusalem began to fill up with Jews from of outlaying cities like Galilee who were not as loyal to the current political rules in Jerusalem. Religious fervor would be at a pitch and the garrison of Atonia would be far outnumbered. Therefore Jesus must be arrested in secret and as quickly as possible once he showed up. His trial must be private and in the dead of night (which was illegal under Mosaic Law) and his execution quick. So that no suspicion would fall on the house of Herod - it would be better that the murder be preformed by the Romans (Jewish authorities were bared from performing executions during occupation anyway) - and seemingly in upholding Jewish Law.

What strikes me - when I read John 18:14 - is what words John uses to describe Caiaphas’ logic. John (who knew Caiaphas in some personal way) has Caiaphas say : “It is expedient that - one man - to-die - on behalf of the (Jewish) people.”

What strikes me is that through the word “on behalf of the people” - Caiaphas is describing - a human sacrifice. One innocent man scarified in blood in order to bribe the gods. Caiaphas is saying that it does not matter if Jesus if is guilty of anything - what matters is that he must be murdered - as a blood sacrifice - for the sake of the Jewish people.

Not since long past in Israel’s history had a king (without High Priest authority) resorted to human sacrifice… when Israel faced an invading horde at its walls and the King has his on sons blood sacrificed upon the altar in efforts to turn the tide of battle in his favor. But now - here it was - the High Priest of Israel actually authorizing human sacrifice - again. Not since Abraham and Isaac - had Israel seen authorized human sacrifice where a legitimate prince and heir to the throne be sacrificed. And all animal sacrifices after Isaac pointed back to Isaac and forward to Christ.

To that end - scholars were sent out to try and trip Jesus up in public. Word traps were laid and sprung in effort to manufacture public evidence that would justify the arrest and death of Jesus the blasphemer. Jesus - did not fall into a one even at the same time as he told the culprits exactly what they were trying to do and why.

But the point of shock here is that the legitimate High Priest in authority (legitimate through his mother) had called for a human sacrifice to be made. No longer a heifer, a goat, a pigeon, a ram… but a human.

His own legitimacy (Caiaphas) made the human sacrifice of Jesus - legitimate. Immoral, an abomination, and repugnant to any sane person - the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was - a REAL human sacrifice under the Law and a human sacrifice authorized by the High Priest himself. This give reality to Peter and Paul when they claim in the epistles that Jesus was a real - sacrifice under Jewish Law.

I have noted elsewhere the striking parallels between the sacrifice of Isaac and the sacrifice of Jesus.

Just a meditation on a portion of the NT.
-ray


-ray
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Dear Ray,

I was going to suggest that you write a book.

But I see you already have! smile

Thank you for sharing this!

Alex

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 275
Praying and asking for prayer
Offline
Praying and asking for prayer
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 275
Dear Ray,

Very, very interesting thoughts.....deep, too.

I really enjoy gaining new insights into the mysteries of our faith, and you gave me a lot to chew on.

I have a concern, though. Since, as we know, official Jewish teaching has never allowed human sacrifices, this "sacrifice" concept has to be approached very carefully. When I first read it, it came across as being able to be taken as anti-semitic, perhaps implying to some people that Jews as a people would have deemed human sacrifice as a valid application of their law....thereby making Jews out to be an evil nation.... although I really don't think you meant it that way, and your basic point sounded very interesting.

I'm extra touchy...being of Jewish ancestry on one side of my family.....

I don't feel like you said something wrong....I'd just like to hear it phrased differently so it isn't taken wrong....please forgive me if I am too critical....(I enjoyed your thoughts!)

Unity In Christ


Let us pray for Unity In Christ!
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
RayK Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Quote
Originally posted by Unity In Christ:
Dear Ray,

I have a concern, though. Since, as we know, official Jewish teaching has never allowed human sacrifices, this "sacrifice" concept has to be approached very carefully.
I see your concerns.

It is only a loose meditation... which I do not have the inclination to research further... And I do not present it as something I am sure of or convinced of in all aspects or that I even know how to express properly.

Certainly Peter and Paul saw the crucifixtion as a real sacrifice and not just a poetic or romantic thing. I may have expressed something that touches on that - or maybe not. I don't really know myself. I do know that in the mind of Caiaphas it was a human sacrifice and perhaps all murders are just that - a human sacrifice to the 'gods' of the murderer.

Rest assured that in my mind the particular evil of Herod, Caiaphas, Pilate, and those of the crowd who felt in like ways - were obviously a minority and not some sort of genetic evil of all Jews. If there was any sin of the majority it is the same sin in all cultures - apathy which can be swayed by the most shallow wind. While there most certainly is a place in the spiritual life for apatheia (spelling) there must also be a place for - passion. May the Good Lord at each moment grant us each that we should be in at the time.

It is we Chritians whe are grafted onto the vine of Moses. The Davidic King of the Jews is our King.

In the mere fact that Caiaphas felt that the number of those who would like to have seen Jesus ascend the throne were such a great number as to actually pose a real threat to the Jerusalem garrison - making his own plans for the arrest of Jesus to be under cover of darkness when most were sleeping - fearful not to ignite the spark that would burst forth the revolt - seems to me to indicate that those who actually would have sympathy for the actions of Caiaphas were small indeed.

At the trial in front of the Sanhedrin… Caiaphas almost lost the momentum of his kangoroo court to the members when Jesus claimed to be “I AM” himself - to the effect that Caiaphas had to quickly and violently pull attention away from the debate (which was perhaps about to turn in Jesus’ favor) by shouting “Blasphemy!” and ripping his robes. Caiaphas - usurped the trial. He could not take the chance that if it was allowed to proceed - Jesus might be found innocent and in consequence actually be who he said he was. The vote of the Sanhedrin was not cast that day. Perhaps it was his right, like when Peter spoke up at the First Council and debate ended on his decision. I imagine some author must have examined this.

I do know that under Jewish Law at the time, no blaspher was put to detah unless he uttered the unspeakable name of God (Yahweh or I AM) which is further proof that Jesus did call himself I AM at the trial. The trial was also invalid because there wer not two witnesses - another reason why Caiaphas had to invoke blasphamy. It seems singificant to me that while Jesus was aware of and foiled all other 'word traps' - when Caiaphas set him up with his question "Are you the Son of God" - Jesus - ran - into this one. Eyes wide open. Not only did he already know what Caiaphas was setting him up for - but he spoke his name clearly (I AM). The 'hour' had come.

I know that it was illegal for the Sanhedrin to meet at night (exactly how in details I do not know) and I wonder if the trial itself was invalid. Because the Sanhedrin members did not vote. I imagine that the proper protocol would have been for the members to vote and then the High Priest would either confirm and approve that vote - or - deny it forcing them to further debate and to vote again. Exactly how that worked I do not know and I am only guessing.

Let us examine the minds of the Sanhedrin members.

It is clear that a minority would have voted for Jesus (which member was it that had the awesome guts to put Jesus‘ body in his own tomb?). If I remember correctly at least two member of the Sanhedrin secretly met with Jesus toward the end and they would not have done that if there were the only two on the Sanhedrin who were attracted to Jesus - it would have been too dangerous - for if the planed outcome of Caiaphas were all ’put to bed’ and it was assured that all other members would vote as Caiaphas wanted - they would be viewed as traitors. So they must have had the human comfort that others in the Sanhedrin were either sympathetic toward Jesus or were at least undecided and not in Caiapashs’ pocket.

Another minority would have voted against Jesus simply because Caiaphas wished it and that would assure their continued favored position while at the same time fearing the demise of the nation if it were allowed to continue up to the point of a hopeless revolt against Rome.

And it seems to me that the majority were undecided. It was the sway of the majority that Caiaphas feared when Jesus made the shocking announcement that he himself was the great “I AM”.

In any event … nothing matters to me but a man’s heart - and I reserve all my hatred for - carnival midgets.

(kidding! Just kidding! oh! someone is going to hold me to account for that joke!).


-ray


-ray
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 275
Praying and asking for prayer
Offline
Praying and asking for prayer
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 275
Quote
Originally posted by RayK:

"Rest assured that in my mind the particular evil of Herod, Caiaphas, Pilate, and those of the crowd who felt in like ways - were obviously a minority and not some sort of genetic evil of all Jews. If there was any sin of the majority it is the same sin in all cultures - apathy which can be swayed by the most shallow wind."
[/QB]
Yes, that's the kind of clarification I wa thinking of.....Thanks, Ray...

Quote

"It is we Chritians whe are grafted onto the vine of Moses. The Davidic King of the Jews is our King."
[/QB]
Yes, yes, Go, Ray, Go!
Quote

"In any event … nothing matters to me but a man’s heart - and I reserve all my hatred for - carnival midgets."
[/QB]
Ray, How could you???

Unity In Christ


Let us pray for Unity In Christ!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 438
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 438
Quote
"Rest assured that in my mind the particular evil of Herod, Caiaphas, Pilate, and those of the crowd who felt in like ways - were obviously a minority and not some sort of genetic evil of all Jews.
Sadly, I share in that evil every day.

John

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,680
D
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,680
"Vine of Moses"? That is an interesting term, but in the words of Linus (Van Pelt), "I know there's a lesson in this somewhere, but I can't remember what it is."

Originally posted by Ray:

"What strikes me - when I read John 18:14 - is what words John uses to describe Caiaphas’ logic. John (who knew Caiaphas in some personal way) has Caiaphas say : “It is expedient that - one man - to-die - on behalf of the (Jewish) people.”

What strikes me is that through the word “on behalf of the people” - Caiaphas is describing - a human sacrifice. One innocent man scarified in blood in order to bribe the gods. Caiaphas is saying that it does not matter if Jesus if is guilty of anything - what matters is that he must be murdered - as a blood sacrifice - for the sake of the Jewish people."

Ray,

Of course, the point the Evangelist is making here is how "prophetic" are the words of Caiaphas.(John 18:14 is refering back to Caiaphas' address to the Sanhedrin, cf. John 11:49-52) In his mind, Caiaphas saw the death of Christ as a means to prevent further Roman intervention, but the greater prophetic word is that the death of Christ would ensure life not only for the "nation", but for many throughout the world and for many throughout time.

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
RayK Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Quote
Originally posted by Deacon John Montalvo:
but the greater prophetic word is that the death of Christ would ensure life not only for the "nation", but for many throughout the world and for many throughout time.
Yes. Quite right.

-ray


-ray
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Dear Ray,

And here I thought that a "real human sacrifice under Jewish law" was a handsome young Jewish man who didn't become either a doctor or a lawyer!

Alex

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
RayK Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Ray,

And here I thought that a "real human sacrifice under Jewish law" was a handsome young Jewish man who didn't become either a doctor or a lawyer!

Alex
I will tell you that when I do go to confession it is crowded in thier because I bring my Jewish lawyer... most time he is able to knock my penance down to just one Hail Mary.Ah... you have got to love tha changes of Vatican II.

(this was humor).
-ray


-ray
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 275
Praying and asking for prayer
Offline
Praying and asking for prayer
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 275
smile cool :rolleyes: biggrin smile

Unity In Christ


Let us pray for Unity In Christ!
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 275
Praying and asking for prayer
Offline
Praying and asking for prayer
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 275
P.S. smile smile smile

Unity


Let us pray for Unity In Christ!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Dear Ray,

There was a Jewish father who sent his son to a Catholic school.

When they found out about it, his relatives and friends said, "What did you do? He'll forget his identity! He'll even forget about Yom Kippur on the fifth!"

The worried father then wired his son a message: "Don't forget Yom Kippur on the fifth!"

His son wired his dad back saying: "Dad, I know nothing about horse-racing, but if you want to put some money for me on Yom Kippur in the fifth, I'll say three Hail Mary's for you!"

Alex

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 89
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 89
Quote
Originally posted by Deacon John Montalvo:
In his mind, Caiaphas saw the death of Christ as a means to prevent further Roman intervention, but the greater prophetic word is that the death of Christ would ensure life not only for the "nation", but for many throughout the world and for many throughout time.
I just read this and remember it applies:


Isaiah 49:1-2,5-6 (NAB)
  • Hear me, O coastlands, listen, O distant peoples. The LORD called me from birth, from my mother's womb he gave me my name.
    He made of me a sharp-edged sword and concealed me in the shadow of his arm. He made me a polished arrow, in his quiver he hid me.
    For now the LORD has spoken who formed me as his servant from the womb, That Jacob may be brought back to him and Israel gathered to him; And I am made glorious in the sight of the LORD, and my God is now my strength!
    * It is too little, he says, for you to be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and restore the survivors of Israel; I will make you a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.

* Note: The Servant's vocation will be not only the restoration of Israel but the conversion of the world; cf Luke 2:32.

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,239
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,239
Dear Ray,

Once again, I read your posts with baided breath. Thank you.

You have shown well for what Jesus' blood was spilled (the life of the nation and the life of the world). And, of course, "life" and "blood" in Hebrew are practically the same word, or share the same root, at a minimum.

I remain fascinated by the parallel with Isaac, not only since my own son is "Isaak" (not the Patriarch, but the Confessor celebrated on the 30th May), but because of the possible parallel with Jesus as High Priest.

If it is true that installation of a new order of High Priest brings a new covenant, can we say:

The Abrahamic Covenant and High Priest Melchizedek parallel the New Testament Covenant and the High Priest Jesus Christ?

Is each new covenant necessarily accompanied by a human sacrifice?

The sacrifice of Isaac to finalize the Abrahamic Covenant and the sacrifice of Jesus to finalize the Christian/New Testament Covenant?

I hope that I am making sense with my query.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5