It is unknown just who was rightful heir to the throne of David but spiritually speaking as well as by genealogy; one of them must be Jesus. He was one in scripture called the “Son of David,” and as the believed to be the son of Joseph, Joseph was also called the “Son of David.” Matthew enumerated the genealogy of Jesus to reveal that Jesus was rightfully king of the Jews.
Jesus, however, never made that claim Himself. Jews knew scripture well. Matthew commenced with Abraham because Abraham was “father” of them all. In genetics, Abraham would be called their “Adam” in that his genes are found in all semitic peoples.
Genealogy was important for one reason: That the Messiah would come from the seed of Abraham. It seems that Herod the Great, who was Arab and of Abraham, and whose religion was Judaism understood that Jesus would be king, and he would have to stop Jesus for Herodians to remain in power. As an Arab, Herod was not rightfully king of the Jews. The heir would be through Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. Herod was only a Jew outwardly.
Herod failed at killing Jesus as God had not chosen him to be king nor executioner of the real King.
Paul realized that only the Son of God would be king when he wrote to Timothy, “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do” (1 Tim 1:4). That Jesus would be King was not through Abrahamic nor Davidic genes but directly from the Gene of God.
As a side note, the archeologist, Ron Wyatt, claims to have discovered the dried blood of Jesus on the Mercy Seat beneath Gordon’s Calvary. He did have it tested, and Jewish technicians identified it as neither the blood of man nor beast. It contained all the mitochondrial DNA from the female but only the Y-chromosome from the paternal side. If that was the blood of Jesus, then He was indeed the Son of Man and the Son of God as is written in the gospels. Therefore, Jesus as the son of David meant little when compared to Jesus as the Lord God Himself.
The real King of All Things is Yahweh and as the Son
of Yahweh, Jesus is heir to all Existence. Jesus, according to John had “Squatter’s
Rights:”
1 In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)
In contrast, Herod had no significant genealogy to warrant him as king. His was by the favor of Octavian Caesar because of his friend, Marc Antony.
Herod’s genealogy was not Jewish at all but an admixture of Ishmael and Esau both of whom had lost their paternal right of primogeniture (first born rights). Herod had no rights to the throne but to secure that right, he divorced Doris, the mother of Antipater, and married Meriamne the Hasmonean, the daughter of Alexander of Judaea who was twice the line of the Maccabees. Those were the basileus (kings) because they warred with the Macedonian, Pompey, and won Judaea. [1]
Neither the Herodian nor the Hasmoneans were rightful heirs to the throne of Judaea, so there were three parties formed: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes. Apparently, the Essenes wanted nothing to do with politics so removed themselves from that environment and secluded themselves on the Dead Sea where they focused on scripture.
The Sadducees and Pharisees were judges of opposite “economies” who formed the Greater Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin in scripture was the Greater Sanhedrin that consisted of seventy-two rabbis which was presided over by Nasi — a prince or president of the Sanhedrin. Thus, the Sanhedrin was the “body politic” that gained their power from the nobility who presided with them. The king, whoever he was, had to have favor with the true power of the Sanhedrin. Thus, the pretenders to the throne of David were the Herodians, the Hasmoneans, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees.
Of course, Caesar was a “god” and “king of kings,” so he was the greatest pretender to the throne of David if he chose to be. Because he wanted peace in all of Syria (that realm including Judaea), he allowed the kings appointed by him to retain power. Herod was the appointed one, but not the anointed one from the seed of Abraham, according to the Abrahamic Covenant. He was the “Saul” to Jesus’s “David.”
The Covenant was always supposed to be the “land of milk and honey” (the Kingdom of David) but God intended it to be the land of milk, honey, oil, and wine which is the description of Paradise in sacred literature (II Enoch 8-9:1). It was not in the First Heaven but the Third Heaven. Jesus was heir to the heavenly Kingdom of God in Paradise but all the pretenders to the throne believed it to be Israel, the extent to be the old Kingdom of David. All the “princes” was contending for the land of Israel except for one: Lucifer desired more, “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God” (Isa 14:13). They could all fight over Judaea but Lucifer had the entire Kingdom of God in mind, or the world and Paradise in the heavens.
With that said, all the politicians were mere “stooges” for Lucifer to defeat God. Among them were the High Priests. For the first time in Jewish history since David, there had been two high priests. For David it was Abiathar and Zadoc. Both Zadok and Abiathar are found acting together as priests under King Solomon. Therefore, Zadoc and Abiathar had had religious power while Solomon held secular power as king.
It is believed that the Sadducees were from Zadoc. If that is true, then the Sadducees were in line to be the “prince” or “president” of the Sanhedrin. (Josephus used the term “president” often for princes of Caesar, or kings of the nations).
As Levitical priests, the Pharisees would have been from Abiathar. In other words, there were two political parties in the time of David and in the time of Jesus. Abiathar had been chief priest of Saul. Thus, the Sadducees would have been the “party of David” and the Pharisees, the “party of Saul.” (You will not find that conclusion elsewhere; it is mine).
As with King Solomon, the son of David, there were two chief priest who executed judgment on Jesus. Annas (Ananias) and Caiaphas were both “chief priests” in scripture, but since Solomon there had been only one. When one fell out of favor with the king or Caesar, another would be appointed. “Chief priest” was an appointed position, and it was often a relative of the king or a previous chief priest. In the case of Annas, Quirinius (Cyrenius) as governor appointed him.
Annas had been chief priest and remained chief priest emeritus. Annas was deposed in 15 A.D. by the governor, Valerius Gratus. Thereafter his five sons and son-in-law, Josephus Caiaphas, were all chief priests one after another. He was so respected by the Jews that there were once again two chief priests as one would expect for any son of David! Jesus was that “Son”!
Now examine so far who contended for the power: Herodians, the Maccabee Hasmoneans, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, Annas, and Caiaphas. But there were more! John in scripture calls them “malefactors” and Josephus called them “thieves.”
Many think of “good Samaritans,” but as Josephus reveals, most Jews did not consider them “good.” Not only did they have one competing temple that was torn down under the rule of the Selucids (Greek Macedonians) but they had different Holy Mountains. Worse yet, they were not “Jews” but an admixture of Jews and Babylonians.
When the Assyrians defeated the Northern Kingdom, many of the ten tribes of Israel were taken to Babylon, then a city of Assyria, and Cuthites (Cutheans) were sent back to what became Samaria to replace the population that was taken away.
The Cutheans had become Jews outwardly but remained Babylonians inwardly. Like Napoleon long after, they pretended what they needed to be to survive. When the Jews were dominant, they were Jewish, but when Jews were out of power, they were whatever the victors were.
In the era before the “Church” the Samaritans were the false church who was swayed by the world. During the time of Jesus and afterward, to travel from Galilee to Judaea required traversing Samaria. There the righteous would be attacked by malefactors that Josephus called “thieves.” Soon after Jesus was crucified, Judaea as the Temple already had, became a “den of thieves.”
If the summer of 2020 is remembered in the U.S., that was much the same as Judaea post 33 A.D. It had become an autonomous zone that even the governor feared, and their king, Antipas, was “king” in name only.
The nationality of Barabbas, Demus, and Dismus (the three malefactors) is unknown. Jesus Barabbas means surname means “son of the father,” so he is antitypical of the biblical scapegoat as well. It was him that should have been crucified because he was the zealot in the crowd who was not necessarily a Jew but may have been a Cuthite from Samaria. He was most certainly one of the thieves of which Josephus wrote, so perhaps he was truly a Samaritan and not just a Jewish zealot who was an insurrectionist.
Perhaps the other two were also Samaritan thieves as well, and of those who continually plagued Judean society and had become the law unto themselves rather than Mosaic Law.
Two laws were tolerated in Judaea. The Jews had their own law and so long it did not interfere with Roman law, then it was tolerated. The Jews did not want to be the blame for killing the king, so to not disturb Tiberius, so they wanted the Romans to be the killers.
Jewish Law was that One must died for all as is written, “Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people” (John 18:14). Jewish law was certain death for the Messiah, but Caiaphas was cowardly; he wanted that others be blamed for killing their Messiah. He seemed to understand what he was about to do, and Jesus validated that when He said their sins were greater than Pilate’s and that the soldiers did not know what they were doing — thinking they were crucifying a thief and not murdering their own Savior!
As such, there were thieves who contended for political power
against both the Jews and the Romans. Those thieves had violated both the
Jewish people and the Roman government and deserved to die in both Jewish and
Roman Law.
29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, “What accusation bring ye against this man?” 30 They answered and said unto him, “If He were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up unto thee.” (John 18:29-30)
They lied! Jesus was accused of being a member of their version of an autonomous zone — that Jews Lives Matter, and that Jesus was no better than a half-breed from Samaria who was guilty of instigating insurrection against both Herod Antipas and Tiberius Caesar. They knew that Jesus was the Messiah and wanted Him dead so they could retain authority. Pontius Pilate was not himself “Roman” but a Samnite, so he would not take it personally.
Jesus was accused of both offending Herod and Caesar as a thief involved with an insurrection. So that Roman Law applied, Caiaphas made his crime, not so much against the Jews, but against Caesar. His charge by the Jews: He is an insurrectionist who desires to be King. His fault with the Jews: He claims to be God!
Jesus never claimed to be King of the Jews, nor did he join any zealots. Jesus answered Pilate when queried, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36).
If He would be king, to stop the thieves, then his disciples would have fought for Him but they did not. He implied that the Jews would fight for the king as they always had before, whoever he was, but they would not fight for Him. He never sought to be King of the Jews nor even reign in Judaea, but in another kingdom outside the bounds of the Herods, the Caesars, or any other monarch.
The Abrahamic Kingdom covenanted by God was made clear; it was not Israel nor even Judaea but Paradise in Heaven — the same Kingdom sought by Lucifer.
Down in the valley, there was another “trial” in progress. Judas played the “scribe” (an early lawyer) and found himself guilty. On that same day, Judas (with Satan in him, made himself supreme judge. That was the peak experience of Lucifer. He would not reign on High but threshed by the Holy Ghost of Jesus from a “Serpent” to a “worm” just as Isaiah saw it in his vision.
Judas had shown the chief priests and the Sanhedrin that they were not fit to judge, and that the purpose of Lucifer was for God to test and thresh-out who was righteous and who was not. That Satan experienced death that day is significant because he knows what is to come when finally, he will be thrown into the lake of fire wherein he will perish.
Next, it will be considered what should have been done according to Roman Law. The reader has seen how Mosaic Law was abrogated, and so was Roman Law.
[1] That kings are basileus is mentioned because that name has continued to this day as St. Peter’s Basilica in Roman Catholicism. Basilicas are churches that are given certain privileges by the Pontificus Maximus (the Pope) who is was much “king of the world” before the unholy Holy Roman Empire was destroyed. As such, the pope was “king of kings” and not Jesus.
(picture credit: Behind the Catholic Counter, "High Priest Garment")
No comments:
Post a Comment