Now let’s continue our lesson. This is part “b” of the Roman trial of Christ. Pilate was the governor of Judea for ten years, from AD 26 to 36, and this was a rather long time, considering that the length of a governor’s tenure was normally about two years, and we know also from historical records that Pilate was recalled to Rome to answer charges of cruelty and oppression because he had killed a large number of Samaritans.
Thursday, 13 April 2017
The Crucifixion of Christ, Part 1b. The Lamb of God
  Православие.Ru, 13 апреля 2017 г. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/102630.htm Dr. Jeannie Constantinou Transcription by OrthoChristian.com See The Crucifixion of Christ, Part 1  Holy and Great Thursday. The Mystical (Last) Supper.
The Crucifixion of Christ, Part 1
Dr. Jeannie Constantinou
See The Roman Trial, Part 2  Holy and Great Friday.
Monday, 10 April 2017
A House of Prayer
  Православие.Ru, 10 апреля 2017 г. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/102568.htm Hieromonk Irenei (Pikovsky) Translated by Jesse Dominick  In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit! The Orthodox services of Holy Monday are meaningful and multifaceted. On this day, we prayerfully remember how the Lord warned His disciples of His coming Passion in Jerusalem, gave an answer to the Pharisees about His authority and clarification to the sons of Zebedee about primacy among the disciples, told the parables of the two sons and the evil vinedressers, announced a prophecy of the end times, and cursed the barren fig tree. But historically, four days before the Lord’s Pascha, He probably did two things: drove the moneychangers out of the Temple, and cursed the barren fig tree. Therefore, our services do not so much retell all the events of the Lord’s last entrance into Jerusalem, as they indicate to the members of the Church the necessity to pray, to be vigilant, and to always have a stockpile of virtues, awaiting the coming of the Heavenly Bridegroom. What do these two strange actions, the driving out of the moneychangers from the Temple, and the cursing of the barren fig tree, signify? After the solemn entry into Jerusalem, the Lord entered the Temple, and, making a whip out of some cords, began to drive out from there the sheep and oxen, overturned the moneychangers’ tables, and entreated them to carry the sacrificial doves out of the Temple (cf. Mt. 21:12-13; Mk. 11:15-17; Lk. 19:45-46; Jn. 2:15-16). Forbidding to bring extraneous things through the Temple, He reminded those around of the words spoken through the prophet Isaiah: My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer,1 and He added, but ye have made it a den of thieves. In our days, Jesus Christ’s zeal for the “house of prayer” is treated in an earthly way by some critics: As the Lord drove the sellers out of the Temple, therefore, any activity of the old ladies behind the candle stand in Orthodox churches falls under the condemnation of “trade.” Does that mean in our modern churches there should be no one and nothing except for parishioners and visitors who have come into the “house of God” to pray? That this is a rather narrow understanding of the Savior’s words, we are told by the realities of the first century and the whole context of the Bible. In antiquity, as in our contemporary churches, there were boxes for collecting donations. The Lord approved of the poor widow’s act, when she put her two mites into the treasury (Mk. 12:42-44). These treasuries in the Jerusalem Temple were protected by a special guard. Our workers, bearing obedience behind the candle stand, often precisely fulfill the function of some kind of guard and make sure that valuables are not stolen from the churches: money, icons, relics, and vessels. Property relations and the reception of donations has been and remains an integral part of a church’s functioning. Jesus Christ not only forbade His disciples to heal lepers, or consider a case with corban as property dedicated to God, or a case of offense towards a brother, but exhorted them to make an offering to the Temple: Be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift (Mt. 5:24, cf. Lk. 5:14, Mk. 7:11). Depending on the social status and material conditions of the carriers, sacrifices could vary from an ox to two turtledoves (see Leviticus). The priests would give a value to this or that sacrifice in antiquity, and maintained the relevant records in special books—so to speak, behind “the candle stand.” According to the book of Acts, the first Christians held all property in common (Acts 2:45), from which the specially-assigned deacons rendered assistance to the needy, widows and orphans (Acts 6:1-6). It is fully possible that already in antiquity there were not only deacons but also deaconesses (see Rm. 16:1), who helped to give assistance from the Church’s cash and gave account for all costs, so to speak, behind “the candle stand.” If the Lord does not forbid man to bring offerings to the Temple and even praises the woman who spent 300 denarii-worth of myrrh on Him (Mk. 14:4-6), that means, the problem is not that we gather offerings for commemorations and candles in the church narthexes, but in something more. Jesus Christ, first and foremost, opposed “house of prayer” to “house of merchandise” (Jn. 2:16), blaming the Jews for turning the “house of prayer” into a “den of thieves” (Lk. 19:46). The concept of a “house of prayer” in the present context goes back to the Jewish expression “Beit tefilah” (בֵּית־תְּפִלָּה, Is. 56:7). “Tefilah” (תְּפִלָּה) is above all supplication, petition, lamentation. David wept for himself: Hear my cry, O God; attend unto my prayer (Ps. 60:1). Through the prophet Isaiah the Lord said to King Hezekiah that He heard his prayer and saw his tears (Is. 38:5). Tefilah is also the intercession of the king or prophet before God for the people (Is. 37:4; Jer. 7:16, 11:14); it is the people’s blessing by the priests (2 Chron. 30:27); it is a prayer of repentance (Dan. 9:3; Neh. 1:6). When God appeared to Solomon at night after the consecration of the first Jerusalem Temple, He said to him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for an house of sacrifice. If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land (2 Chron. 7:12-14). From these words it is clear that forgiveness of sins and the healing of the earth does not come automatically as a prize for enduing afflictions. No, the suffering must humble himself, pray, and turn from his wicked ways. The prophet Isaiah reproaches the people on behalf of God for their mechanical utterance of the words of prayer, when the hearts of those coming to the Temple were occupied by extraneous things. Their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men (Is. 29:13). The Lord invalidates formal prayer: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me (Mk. 7:6). Therefore, the desolation of “the house of prayer” begins with the desolation of the soul of the praying man himself. The “house of prayer” is not simply the building of a church,2 but every place where believers gather to beseech God from the depths of their hearts, as with one mouth.3 For where two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, there He is in the midst of them (see Mt. 18:20). Christ said to the Samaritan Woman, that neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, will you worship the Father… But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him (Jn. 4:21, 23). The apostle Paul adds that from henceforth we, having received the grace of Baptism, are the temple of the living God (2 Cor. 6:16) and our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). Ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious, writes the apostle Peter, To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood (1 Pt. 2:3-5). Therefore we, as stones of the living house of God, as part of the common body of the Church, must offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ (1 Pt. 2:5). Let us dare to add that the words of the Savior on not making the house of prayer into a den of thieves refer not only to stone churches, and not only to the clergy. The house of God becomes a “den of thieves,” according to the prophet Jeremiah, when people enter into it without clean hearts. Trust ye not in lying words, says Jeremiah, saying, The temple of the Lord are these… Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit… ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations (Jer. 7:4-11). So, a “den of thieves” can be not only those places where they abuse church privileges, but any person in whose soul the passions of envy, deceit, hypocrisy, and resentment at his brother have become the masters. The Lord directly says to such people, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift (Mt. 5:24). God will not receive our weeping for our sins, if every one of us does not forgive our brother his trespasses from our hearts (cf. Mt. 18:35, 6:14-15). But worse still will it be for those who were already invited to the Heavenly Bridegroom’s wedding feast, but, disregarding it, went to their field or to trade (cf. Mt. 22:5). Such truly have exchanged their souls for mammon, making their “house of prayer” into a “house of merchandise.” The barren fig tree is not to blame that it had no fruit in early spring (cf. Mk. 11:13). But it’s instantaneous withering at the word of the Lord is a lesson for us. The lush, green external appearance of the fig tree promised fruit, but it had nothing but some leaves. Thus, Lord can wither those who have only the external appearance of fulfilling the Law, but bear no fruits of faith, in the blink of an eye. May these examples, dear fathers, brothers, and sisters, of the cursing of the fig tree and the driving out of the moneychangers from the Temple be a warning for us. To those who do not preserve their baptismal garments white, who are pious only in appearance, but bring forth no fruits of faith, it is useless to repeat the words, “The Temple of the Lord is here.” It’s not worth it to blame others and the clergy and to say that you don’t like to pray in this or that church. God hears our prayers and lamentations for our sins from the depths of our heart in every place. But if someone, going to the “house of God,” harbors a grudge against his neighbor, he has already made his soul a “den of thieves.” Therefore, let us be watchful over our souls and pray, stock up on the oil of virtues, put a wick in the lampadas of faith and go to meet the Bridegroom in the Bridechamber. Let us echo in the house of prayer of our souls the hymn of Holy Week: “Thy bridal chamber I see adorned, O my Savior, but I have no wedding garment that I may enter. O Giver of Light, enlighten the vesture of my soul, and save me.”4 1 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people (Is. 56:6-7). 2 The expression “house of God” is first met in Holy Scripture in relation to Jacob’s vision of the mysterious ladder, and not in relation to the concrete building of the Temple (see Gen. 28:17). 3 In Acts 16:13 the “place of prayer” is a synagogue, not the Jerusalem Temple. 4 Exaposteilarion of Bridegroom Matins of Holy Monday.
Pontius Pilate’s Wife
  Православие.Ru, 10 апреля 2017 г. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/102542.htm Archpriest Oleg Stenyayev Translation by Dmitry Lapa  James Tissot. The message from Pilate's wife. November 9 is the feast-day of Claudia Procula, Pontius Pilate’s wife. She was recognized as a holy martyr by the Greek Orthodox, the Coptic and the Ethiopian Churches. The episode connected with her is perhaps among the most mysterious. In the Gospel according to Matthew (Mat. 27:19) we read: When he [Pontius Pilate.—Trans.] was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. According to many authors, Pilate’s wife was later converted to Christ, and, according to some evidence, she was executed as a Christian. Different sources vary on exactly what happened to Pilate after the Crucifixion of Christ: Eusebius of Caesaria wrote that Pilate had been exiled to Vienne in Gaul where manifold misfortunes eventually caused his suicide; according to other information, Pilate was executed by Emperor Nero; and, finally, the apocryphal tradition referred to his repentance, conversion to Christianity and attributed his execution to his faith in Jesus Christ. Archpriest Oleg Stenyayev speaks about what is known of Pilate’s wife, how she may have suffered, and what Russian people thought of her in olden times.  Antonio Ciseri's portrayal: Ecce Homo (“Behold, the Man!”). Pontius Pilate presents scourged Jesus Christ to Jerusalem residents, with grieving Pilate's wife in the right corner. Claudia Procula, according to the third-century early Christian sources (including, first of all, the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus), was the wife of Pontius Pilate, a Roman governor. She is venerated as a saint by the Greeks of Cappadocia and by the Ethiopian Church, but there is no universal veneration of her. I saw an icon of Pontius Pilate and his wife in Hurghada, Egypt. I asked the Copts why they venerate them. And I was answered that this veneration dates back to the earliest times. The Church of Greece commemorates Claudia Procula on October 27 according to the old calendar. The Ethiopian Church honors her memory together with that of her husband Pontius Pilate on June 25. Let us take note of the fact that they are commemorated together—the husband and the wife, which makes it one of the earliest examples of the veneration of a couple by Christians. By the way, there are few saintly married couples venerated by our Church. It is known from the ancient tradition that Pontius Pilate and his spouse were executed. They may have been executed not for their faith in Jesus Christ; there was no punishment for worshipping “other gods” in the Roman Empire—Roman law did not have an article like this. However, those who refused to perform divine honors before an emperor’s statue could be executed. Meanwhile, Christians interpreted even nominal honoring of non-Christian deities as a kind of apostasy. In the Book of Exodus we read: And make no mention of the name of other gods (Exod. 23:13), and the names of pagan gods are enumerated there. So exegetists make the conclusion that we must not invoke the names of heathen deities as we invoke the Name of true God.  The Lord Jesus Christ at Pilate's judgment hall. So what really happened at the trial of Jesus? The apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus gives quite vague information on this. Let me quote from it: “His own wife who stood at a distance sent to him saying: Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered much concerning him in a vision this night.” What do the words “concerning him” (or, in other translations, “on his account”) mean: “from” or “for” him? It is not very clear. This place provoked theological debate. Most probably the wretched spirits, who wanted the Savior to be crucified and incited the large crowd to shout, “Crucify, crucify Him!” tried to prevent Pilate’s wife from applying for release of Christ. This is a very important detail that is ignored by many. Thus, the words, “I suffered much concerning him,” should be understood as, “I pled for him and was attacked.” The apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus also says that the Jews strove to prevent Pilate’s wife from interceding for Christ. And one more interesting detail: There is a suggestion that she may have been a proselyte and as such had a good understanding of the matters of faith. Furthermore, Pilate used to turn to his wife with faith-related questions. The origins of this tradition are unclear; there are no references in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. Proselyte wives of high-ranking Roman rulers, especially those connected with Judea, were not a rare phenomenon of that time. According to evidence of Flavius Josephus, the wife of Emperor Nero, Poppaea Sabina, was a proselyte, so it is natural that the tradition described Pontius Pilate’s wife as a proselyte, too. It is commonly believed that the well-known verse from the Second Epistle to Timothy—Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren (2 Tim. 4:21) – refers to Pontius Pilate’s wife. It was a common practice of that era: Those people who were sentenced to death were sent to long exile—let us recall Titus from the Flavian family. It is quite possible that not only was Claudia sentenced to death, but, like Titus (who was of noble descent, from the Flavian family, the dynasty of Emperors Vespasian and Domitian), she also served the apostles and their disciples in exile. In the Middle Ages it was believed that Pilate’s wife saw a demon with her own eyes, which tormented her and hindered her in her efforts to petition for Christ. So Claudia had a kind of struggle with a demon—the evil spirit supposedly tried to prevent her from seeing Christ in her dream. But it is hard to imagine how a demon could have obstructed her. Anyway the woman had some sort of a struggle—after all, she testified herself that she had suffered much for this righteous Man. A more detailed account of the trial before Pilate, his wife’s dream, and her later life can be found in the apocryphal work, “The Letters of Claudia Procula to Fulvia”. It was written allegedly in the name of Claudia, Pontius Pilate’s wife, who shares the story of her life in Jerusalem with her friend, devoting special attention to events related to the Gospel story. This text can be found in the internet. Given the title and the style of this work, it can be dated to the second or third century. Here the main principles of writing messages of the era are observed: a letter, from whom, and to whom it is written. “A letter from Claudia Procula to Fulvia.” Compare: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus…, I am writing to…” So they first point to their rank, and then name their addressees. As for the veneration/lack of veneration of Claudia Procula in the Russian Orthodox Church… In olden times Russian people composed spiritual songs dedicated to Pilate and his wife. By the way, these partially inspired the writer Mikhail Bulgakov when he was writing his novel, The Master and Margarita. The contents of these songs are as follows: “Pontius Pilate couldn’t find inner peace after committing such a great crime as the crucifixion of the Savior. In some sense, he had gone beyond all limits, while the severity of a punishment should correspond with the seriousness of a crime. But this crime is so flagrant that there is no punishment that is appropriate for it. Thus Pontius Pilate became a wanderer forever; and his wife is also condemned to accompany him in these wanderings, perpetually mourning over the sin that her husband committed.” But that is no more than a piece of folklore. One can ask the Old Believers if they have the names of Pontius Pilate and his wife in their Church calendar. This will help us find out whether they were officially venerated in the pre-Nikonian Russia or not.
Friday, 7 April 2017
The Jewish Trial, Part 2. Son of God, Son of Man
  Православие.Ru, 6 апреля 2017 г. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/102487.htm
Dr. Jeannie Constantinou
See The Jewish Trial, Part 1 “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Illumine our hearts, O Master Who loves mankind, with the pure light of Thy divine knowledge. Open the eyes of our mind to understand Thy gospel teachings. Implant in us also the fear of Thy blessed commandments, that trampling down all carnal desires, we may enter upon a spiritual manner of living, both thinking and doing such things that are well-pleasing unto Thee. For Thou art the illumination of our souls and bodies, O Christ our God, and unto Thee we ascribe glory, together with Thy Father, Who is from everlasting, and Thine all-holy, good, and life-giving Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.”  "Christ before Caiaphas". The High Priest is depicted tearing his robe in grief at Jesus' perceived blasphemy (Giotto, Life of Christ, Scrovegni Chapel, Padua). Photo: Wikipedia At this point we are approximately halfway through the Jewish trial. I want to read for you again this passage in Matthew and conclude it. When we last met, Caiaphas was just about to question Christ and we were going to hear the exchange between them. So now let’s hear this section of Matthew’s Gospel from chapter 26 verse 57 and then 59 through 66 (Revised Standard Version). Then those who had seized Jesus led Him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered. Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus, that they might put Him to death. But they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last, two came forward and said: “This fellow said ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days’.” And the high priest stood up and said: “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” but Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to Him: “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God?” Jesus said to you Him: “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of Heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said: “He has uttered blasphemy! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard His blasphemy. What is your judgment?” They answered: “He deserves death.” So let’s take a look at the verse where we left off, verse 62. “And the high priest stood up and said: ‘Have you no answer to make?’”. The high priest, we all know, was Caiaphas. Matthew had told us this earlier in the narrative. Caiaphas was an extremely powerful man in his day. The high priest was the most powerful man in the nation and he exercised supreme authority in both the political and the religious realms. Under Jewish law the position of the high priest was supposed to pass through a specific family, much like a royal succession. However, long before the birth of Christ the position had become politicized and different families had managed to take control of the high priesthood. Some Jewish factions did not recognize the authority of Caiaphas or the other high priests of this period because they did not descend from the correct high priestly family. In addition, the high priest was supposed to serve a life tenure. Corruption in the Roman Empire Now let’s talk about the family question. I’ll just give you one example. One example is the Essenes, the Qumran community, the people on the shores of the Dead Sea, who wrote down the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were living there because they rejected the religious leadership in Jerusalem, because Caiaphas and other high priests did not come from the correct family lineage. Now let’s talk about the tenure. The high priest was supposed to serve for life, but the Romans preferred to change the high priest every year. When the Romans took control of Judea they began to appoint and to depose the high priests. Why did they do this? Because by controlling who held the office of the high priest and only choosing men who would protect Roman interests, the Romans could effectively control the Jews. And what is really surprising is that the Romans even kept in their possession the ceremonial robes, the vestments, of the high priest. They would give it to him when he needed to officiate for some major feasts such as the upcoming Passover. That was another way that they controlled the office. Now I don’t know if you recall, a few podcasts back I told you, how we know about these details. Who told us this? Because it’s quite shocking to imagine that the Jews had to give the sacred robes of the high priest over to the Romans, who just by touching them or keeping them within the Roman quarters, defiled them. So the Jews would have to go get the ceremonial robes in advance and go through some kind of ritual of purification before the priest could even put on the robes. How do we know about this? We know this from Flavius Josephus, the first century Jewish historian I had told you about a few weeks back. So the Romans not only controlled who became the high priest, but they created for themselves an opportunity for financial gain, because being assigned to the province of Judea was not exactly very appealing for procurators. Many of these provinces were in remote places of the Empire, and one reason to go to these places was for financial gain. The governors received bribes from people for appointing them to positions of power. And this was actually a very serious problem in the Roman Empire at this time—the corruption of the governors. So the appointment of high priests was a very lucrative source of income. Why appoint one for a lifetime? Why not appoint one every year? And this may be the reason why only a few families at this time controlled the ranks of the high priesthood, because only they could afford the cost that was involved. So men in Rome sought positions as procurators in these distant provinces so they could get rich, basically. Of course, this created a lot of corruption. And Pilate—we’ll talk about him later—was recalled to Rome for corruption and cruelty. We can assume that Caiaphas was not only powerful but also extremely wealthy, because he had to pay Pilate and the other governors for his position. Now Caiaphas held this office for 18 years, a very long time considering that he had to keep reapplying for it every year. That was much longer than Pilate was in Judea, so he was serving as high priest when Pilate arrived and he was there when Pilate left. And the fact that Pilate allowed Caiaphas to remain as high priest during his tenure suggests that Caiaphas had a tremendous amount of political power and savvy, and that he cooperated well with the Romans. Jesus’s silence So what does Caiaphas say to Christ? “Have you no answer?” Remember, there were two false witnesses who came forward and said that Jesus said He would destroy the Temple and in three days build it up again. And, of course, this is not correct because what he was really saying was that they would be destroying the Temple, that is, His body, and He would raise it again in three days. So although the charges about the Temple are serious because they thought Christ was claiming that He would destroy the Temple, this is really not a capital offense. Caiaphas wants something stronger, he wants something better to convict Christ with, and so he tries to elicit a statement that will result not only in a conviction but unequivocally call for the death penalty. Saying, “I’m going to destroy this Temple,” even though it was considered serious, really is not serious enough to kill someone. At this point Christ could have extricated Himself from the situation, He could have denied making that statement because He never made it, or at least not in the manner in which the witnesses said it. He could explain that He was referring to the destruction of His own body, not the destruction of the Temple, etc. But in verse 63 it says, “But Jesus was silent, and the high priest said to Him: ‘I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God’.” Let’s take that first part, “But Jesus was silent.” Christ maintains His dignity by His silence. Now some consider the silence itself an offense, but He is not intimidated by the high priest or the members of the Great Sanhedrin. He’s surrounded by the most powerful men in the entire nation, but having accepted the will of the Father He remains silent and makes no defense or attempt to save Himself. He is completely obedient to the Father’s will and answers only to the Father. Far from being a victim, Christ places Himself above the proceedings and shows that He is in control of His own destiny. St. John Chrysostom also notes that Jesus sees no point in defending Himself to people who are not interested in hearing the truth. I had mentioned this a few podcasts ago, when they asked Him about His authority. He simply did not engage in these kinds of discussions or proofs by miracles for people who were not open to the truth. And we see this in Luke’s Gospel when Christ responds to this question by the high priest by saying, “If I tell you ‘yes,’ you still won’t believe it.” So then the high priest uses another tactic, because Christ was silent. He now puts him under oath. “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Now why is it that the statement about the Temple leads him to ask Christ whether He is the Messiah? That’s what it means when he says, “Tell us if you are the Christ.” This is because at that time a promise to destroy and rebuild the Temple was associated in the Jewish mind with the coming of a Messiah king, a descendent of David who would reign as wise and just and righteous. Christ entered Jerusalem on a donkey, an obvious fulfilment of the prophecy of Zachariah, and He was acclaimed by the people as Son of David and King of Israel, which are Messianic titles. The Jewish leaders recognized that many of the people perceived Christ as the Messiah because of His amazing teaching and miraculous powers. It’s a natural conclusion to make because of the testimony about the Temple, so it leads to this question at the trial: “Tell us if you are the Christ.”  Christ Before Caiaphas, by Matthias Stom. Photo: Wikipedia “I adjure you” he asks. Now the ordinary word for causing someone to swear is the verb “orkizo.” This comes from the Greek word for “oath,” which is “orkos.” “Orkizo” is, “I cause you to swear.” But here the word is even stronger “exorkizo”. It is a hapax in the New Testament. A hapax is a word that occurs only once. That’s terminology used by Biblical scholars. In Greek we would say “apax”, but in English they pronounce the breath mark and say “hapax.” And this word, “exorkizo,” “I adjure you,” means, “I place you under oath” in a formal swearing ceremony, in a trial situation. This word is also found in the Old Testament in two places, but here it is unique in the New Testament. It was a common Rabbinic formula for placing someone under an oath. This precise form is also found in the Mishnah, which was the Jewish legal code. To place someone under an oath with the word “exorkizo,” “I adjure you,” means that the defendant was compelled to respond. Do you see how they didn’t have the witness lift up his hand and ask, “Do you swear to tell the truth”? They could be silent unless they were forced to answer by means of this formula. This is the opposite of the American Fifth Amendment, which is the right against self-incrimination. In America you’re allowed not to speak, because you have a right not to say something against your own interests. You have a right to be silent. Here, the defendant didn’t take an oath, but He is being compelled, by the use of this formula, to answer. And the reason why this was done was that the Jews believed that having invoked the name of God a defendant would be too afraid of the wrath of God to lie. So they believed that when someone responded to this formal oath, the truthfulness of the answer was guaranteed, and that is why they used this formula “exorkizo.” Of course, Christ responds to this question although He was silent before. Why does He do this? Because if the defendant did not respond, his silence was taken as an admission of the accusation against him. Jesus decides to speak since by remaining silent it would be considered an admission anyhow, and He would be condemned. He now openly acknowledges His identity and He further clarifies it. The question was, “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” He’s been placed under oath to answer the question at to whether He is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Now, for the most part, Christ had avoided the title “Messiah.” That’s a Jewish word meaning “anointed one.” The “anointed one” could be the king, he could be the high priest, but this came to mean the person who is expected to be the deliverer or the savior of the people. The term was “Messiah.” In Greek “anointed one” was the word “Christos,” so that’s where we get our word “Christ” from. He avoided this title because there were many different messianic expectations among the Jews at that time. Some Jews had given up on the idea of a Messiah. That’s the case with many Jews today. Many Jews do not expect any kind of a Messiah. Others expected a political savior. In the Qumran community (those are the people at the Dead Sea, the Essenes who produced the Dead Sea scrolls) they expected two Messiahs, one a prophet, and one a priest. Yet other people had perhaps a more spiritual understanding of who the Messiah would be. But Christ is not condemned for claiming to be the Messiah. There were many “Messianic pretenders” before Him and there were a number after Him. There are some around even today. This was not considered a crime. These people were never charged with blasphemy or condemned for having committed a crime. Christ was condemned for claiming to be the Son of God. It’s the second part of the question that leads to his condemnation. The Son of God Now listen to the way the high priest phrases the question. “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” It is extremely ironic that the question of the high priest exactly echoes Peter’s confession of faith earlier in the Gospel for which Peter was praised and rewarded. When Christ asked, “Who do men say that I am,” then “Who do you say that I am?”, Peter said, “You are the Messiah, the Son of God,” right? And this is now the question being posed. Peter was praised for recognizing who Christ is and being bold enough to say it. Let’s talk about the title “Son of God.” This title arose early in the ministry of Christ. We see it in the mouth of the devil at the temptation of Christ in the wilderness in Matthew chapter 4. What does he say? “If you are the Son of God,” and other places He is acknowledged the Son of God by the demons. “Why are you bothering us now, Son of God? Have you come to bother us before the time?” It’s not infrequent that the demons use this title “Son of God.” The centurion says it in the Gospel of Matthew when Christ dies. “Truly He was the Son of God.” As we mentioned, St. Peter says it. So this is a very important title in the Gospel of Matthew. He brings out this title quite frequently. “Son of God” was a title found in the Old Testament, but there it was equivalent to calling someone a child of God, the way we do today—all believers are “children of God.” We see this, for example, in the Psalm that says, “You are all the sons of the Most High God.” But Christ was not called a son of God, the way we are called “children of God.” He was called the Son of God. And this title has never been applied to anyone else. It was also not applied to Christ by others, but it was His own self-designation. He referred to Himself as “the Son.” When He spoke about God being our Father, He would say, “Your Father in Heaven knows what you need,” but He never included Himself with our group. When he spoke to us about God He would say, “your Father,” but when He spoke about His relationship to God He said “my Father,” not “our Father.” “My Father is working and so am I,” etc. So, “Son of David” was a Messianic title, but “Son of God” was not. It was not something that the Jews used as a title or would have expected. It was not something that Christians or the Church would’ve thought later to apply to Christ. It would not have naturally flowed from the idea of Jesus as the Messiah. So why did the early Christians call Jesus the Son of God? Because it’s not something that they invented later. Many people like to say, “Well, in order to make Christianity appealing to the masses they invented the idea that Jesus was divine.” Early Christians would never have done that because all of the first Christians were Jews. There was no conception that the Messiah would be divine. Now think back: remember the discussion about the psalm in which Christ challenges them, “The Lord said to my Lord”? Remember how He points out His divinity in a very subtle way when He asks the Jewish leaders about David’s son. “Whose son is the Messiah?” They said, “David’s son,” and He tries to lead them to the understanding that He has to be more than David’s son. The early Christians would never have invented that. They recognized that Jesus is the Son of God because He referred to Himself in that way. So the Gospel accounts reflect the true historical memory of the Church. He called Himself “the Son.” It’s not something that was invented later. All of the Gospels agree that Christ was condemned not because He claimed to be the Messiah, but because He claimed to be the Son of God. Even in the Gospel of John the Jewish leaders insist to Pilate that Jesus must be crucified. And what do they say? “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He claimed to be the Son of God.” That’s John 19:7. So when Jesus is rejected by the Jewish leaders, finally and fully now at His trial, He is rejected precisely for who He is, not on the basis of a misunderstanding or failure to observe the Sabbath or failure to fully reveal the truth about Himself. He’s rejected on the basis of this title, which expresses the deepest mystery of His person and which was the most exalted confession of the Church. He’s not just Messiah, but the Son of God. In verse 64 Christ answers: “Jesus said to him: ‘You have said so.’” Remember, the question was, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the living God?” Jesus said, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of Heaven.” Let’s take the first part of that response, “You have said so.” This response to the high priest’s question strikes the modern reader as rather evasive. It has been interpreted by modern commentators in a variety of ways. Some say it’s an affirmative answer, some say it’s a negative answer, and others say it’s neutral or ambiguous. I don’t know how they arrive at all these opinions. It’s clearly an affirmative answer. And not only that, it seems to have been a characteristic expression of Jesus to say, “You have said so.” And Christ, being true and authentic, would have responded affirmatively to the truth. He knows He’s going to be condemned, might as well say the truth. How do we know that this is an affirmative response: “You said so”? Because even in English you can understand it in different ways depending upon the inflection. “Are you the Messiah, the Son of God”? You can say, “You said so.” Or you could say “You said it!” Right? In other words, you are acknowledging it. How do we know that it is an affirmative answer? Earlier Jesus says the same thing when He announced that someone is going to betray Him. The best way to understand how an Evangelist uses a word or intends to use a word is by how he uses in his own writings, elsewhere in his own writings. Earlier in the Gospel of Matthew we have this same exact expression. When Christ announced to the disciples that someone was going to betray Him, they were saying “Is it me Lord”? They go around asking, “Is it me Lord?”, “Is it me Lord?” And when Judas asks the question “Is it me?” Christ answers, “You said so.” Obviously it’s a “yes” answer there. It’s not ambiguous. Then later He says the same thing to Pilate when Pilate says, “Are you the king of Jews?” Jesus gives not exactly the same words in Greek but it’s the same kind of reply: “You say so.” That’s also in the Gospel of Matthew. The same thing is in the Gospel of John—when He’s asked a question he replies, “You say that I am a king.” So obviously this was a very characteristic expression on the part of Christ. Another reason why we know that “You said so” is clearly an affirmative response, is by what Christ says following it. Now there is a lot of power and irony in the response. It’s a much stronger response than simply saying, “yes,” because by saying “You said it,” Christ is turning the statement back towards the high priest, and He affirms that the confession of Christ’s true identify has just come out of mouth of the high priest. And the judge, the high priest, has become a witness for the defense, a witness to the truth, the truth of who Christ is, even though that was never his intention. So what does He add to this statement, “You said so,” that makes it clearly an affirmative answer, “Yes I am the Messiah, the Son of God”? He adds “But I say to you that from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of Heaven.” This is a key statement, and with it, the Lord seals His fate. And after hearing the statement the high priest tears his robes and the whole assembly pronounces Jesus guilty of blasphemy.  Duccio Di Buoninsegna. Christ Before Caiaphas. 1308-11 The Son of Man. So what did He say that was so shocking? Because to us it doesn’t seem so terrible. Let’s start with “Son of Man.” “You will see the Son of Man,” this was not an uncommon substitution for “I”. Most of the time that was just a substitution for the word “I,” the way we might say “yours truly,” or “my person.” It was considered an indirect or less egocentric way to refer to oneself and Christ uses this a lot. It’s the most common title He uses to refer to Himself. It’s interesting that it was never really used by the early Church. Only Christ called Himself, “the Son of Man.” He often referred to Himself as the Son of Man rather than saying, “I”, because, you know, people get annoyed when you say “me”, “me”, “me”, “I”, “I”, I”. So it was an indirect way to refer to yourself as the “son of man.” These “Son of Man” sayings can be grouped into three categories. First, those that express His view of Himself as the Suffering Servant. So whenever He talks about His coming crucifixion, He’ll say the “Son of Man will be arrested by the chief priests,” “the Son of Man will be crucified,” etc. The second way this term is used is in His role in the future judgment, and that’s an apocalyptic use of the term, “Son of Man.” “When He comes in His glory the Son of Man will separate the sheep from the goats.” This is an expression of judgement. Also this term, “Son of Man”, is used whenever He refers to His divine authority. For example, His authority to forgive sins: “That you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” etc. “The Son of Man” was also a way of calling someone a human being or simply a “person.” It’s just as we say, “I’m human,” “a daughter of a human being,” “I’m a son of a human”; in other words, you’re human. And the term “Son of Man” is found in the Prophets, for example in Ezekiel. “Prophesy to the dry bones, son of man, say to this to the people.” It’s a way of saying “little man,” “insignificant person,” “human being.” It emphasizes the insignificance of man in comparison to God. But “Son of Man” is also found in the book of Daniel where Daniel has the vision of the coming Messiah, who is called the Son of Man. And then we see this again the book of Revelation, that John saw “one like a Son of Man.” Now what it does not mean is Jesus acting in or referring to His human nature. “Son of Man” never means that. It never means His human nature vs. His divine nature—so get that out of your mind. The Jewish leaders understand, because this was an ordinary expression and of course it takes on greater meaning when Christ uses the term the way the prophets did. But they understand when He says, “You will see the Son of Man,” that He’s talking about Himself. He’s telling them, “You will see the Son of Man,” in other words, “me,” “sitting at the right hand of the Power.” Now “the Power” was a euphemism for God. Matthew is a Jewish writer and he had a Jewish audience, obviously I mean Jewish Christian. He’s a Jewish Christian writer writing to a Jewish Christian audience and this is why he consistently almost never says, “the Kingdom of God.” Matthew always writes the “Kingdom of Heaven.” The Jews tried to avoid even using the word “God.” They tried to avoid referring to God directly, because Jews considered that very inappropriate. They certainly never spoke the divine name, the Tetragrammaton, (YHWH) Yahweh. Instead they used expressions that were indirect references to God, such as, “the Power,” “the Lord Almighty,” “Heaven.” So, rather than saying, “May God bless you,” they would say “may Heaven bless you,” or they might say “the Mighty One of Jacob.” The “Mighty One” is God. In Mark’s trial account, Christ says He will sit at the right hand of the “Blessed One.” That’s another euphemism for God; but notice how they don’t say the word “God.” However, all of these expressions mean the same thing. Jesus claims that He will come and sit at the right hand of God, and He uses same language to describe the Second Coming, when the Son of Man will come to judge the world. So we might say, “So what?” We’re accustomed to hearing that Jesus is “sitting at the right hand of the Father.” We say this every time we say the Creed, right? He’s “sitting at the right hand.” But we have really lost an appreciation for how powerful that statement was. But it was not lost on the early Christians. That’s why it is in the Creed. Think of how important it must be for it to have been included in the Creed. To “sit at the right hand” is to share power equally, to have complete authority, to co-reign. So by saying, “I will sit at the right hand of the Power,” or “You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power,” Jesus is claiming to be equal to God. No one reigns with God unless he himself is God. So “sit at the right hand of God,” from Psalm 109/110, was a very powerful biblical image, and it meant complete authority and co-ruling with God. There is no question—He is claiming divinity. Now the Jewish leaders have the incriminating statement that they hoped He would provide. So, anyone who tells you Jesus never claimed to be divine certainly does not understand the Bible. He consistently claims divine prerogative, to forgive sins, to speak for God, to judge. He calls himself, “the Son.” He claims that He’s the only way to the Father, and here, of course, there is no question that He is claiming divinity. Otherwise the Jews would really have no real grounds for having him put to death. Then there’s one more detail added. “You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of Heaven.” Now the reference to clouds here is not just for poetic embellishment. This is an allusion to Daniel 7:13, the apocalyptic vision of the coming of the Messiah. The Jews always associated clouds with divine revelations and theophanies, appearances of God. At the Transfiguration of Christ the voice of God comes from the cloud, right? When the Israelites are wandering through the wilderness for forty years, they are accompanied by God in the form of a cloud. The Psalmist says things such as, “you make the clouds your chariot and your ministers a flame of fire.” At His ascension, Christ disappears into the clouds, and the disciples are told He will return in the same manner. St. Paul echoes this same idea when He describes the coming of the Lord with clouds in 1 Thessalonians 4. So, clouds are a powerful symbol of the presence of divinity. This just bolsters what he previously said, that He will be sitting at the right hand of the Power. It is a statement of divinity. Then we come to verse 65. “And the high priest tore his robes and said, ‘He has uttered blasphemy! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard His blasphemy’.” Chrysostom says that the high priest does not give the sentence from himself, but invites it from them, as in the case of confessed sins and manifest blasphemy. He anticipates the sentence by saying, “You have heard the blasphemy,” but necessitating and forcing them to deliver the sentence, themselves accusing, themselves judging, themselves passing sentence, themselves being everything. And of course the high priest tears his robes. There is one response to the statement, “it is blasphemy”; and, Chrysostom says the high priest rent his clothes to add force to the accusation. It is a very dramatic act, to aggravate the accusation of blasphemy by this act. Chrysostom asks, why does Christ respond to them at all? It’s a great question. He says, “in order to take away all their excuse, because until the very last day He taught that He was the Christ, that He sits at the right hand of the Father and that He will come again to judge the world.” But of course this elicits the response of the tearing of the high priest’s robe. This was a ritual expression of grief and anguish, that the Majesty of God has been egregiously violated. The high priest was not permitted to rend his garments even upon the death of his own parents. It was typical that if someone learned that his parent had died he would tear his garments as an expression of grief. The high priest was not allowed to do that. So the fact that he does so in response to Jesus’ statement underscores blasphemy in the most dramatic fashion. Furthermore, when the high priest would rend his garments they were never allowed to be mended. So what does he say? He says “He has committed blasphemy,” and blasphemy of course was one of the most serious crimes in the Old Testament, and it carried with it the death penalty. In earlier times, blasphemy only occurred if the offender pronounced the divine name of God, Yahweh, since this was strictly forbidden. But here Jesus did not pronounce the name of God and instead used a typical reverential substitute when He called God “the Power.” And since we often see the Pharisees accusing Christ of blasphemy when He pronounced that someone’s sins were forgiven, it seems that by the first century blasphemy could refer to a violation of the power or the majesty of God, not just saying the name of God. So when you violate the majesty or the power of God, in other words, when you’re claiming to interfere in the sphere of God, you’re placing yourself where you don’t belong, either directly or indirectly, thereby claiming divinity, then it was blasphemy—even though Christ did not pronounce the name of God. “He deserves death.” So, the high priest asks in verse 66, “What is your judgement? And they answered ‘He deserves death’.” Of course, this is hardly surprising. Any observant Jew would consider it his duty to have Jesus put to death after hearing this very shocking statement. So the high priest’s question, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of God?” had exactly echoed Peter’s confession of faith when Jesus had asked His disciples, “Who do men say that I am?” and Peter replied “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This happened earlier in the Gospel, Matthew 16:16. Now, at His trial, Jesus is rejected by the Jewish leaders for precisely who He is. He’s rejected on the basis of this title; Christ affirmed His identify before the Jewish leaders, He never shrank from saying the truth, and now He is condemned to death—not for any crime, but for who He is. Next time we’ll talk about the Roman trial before Pilate. Now let’s close with our prayer: “Lord, now let Thy servants depart in peace according to Thy word, for our eyes have seen Thy salvation which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of Thy people Israel. Amen.” Presbytera and Dr. Jeannie Constantinou’s podcasts can be found here.
The Jewish Trial, Part 1
  Православие.Ru, 4 апреля 2017 г.
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/102425.htm Dr. Jeannie Constantinou
See Trials and Crucifixion of Christ, Part 2b. The Traps
We continue our series of transcriptions of Dr. Jeannie Constantinou’s podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio, “Search the Scriptures”. Today Dr. Jeannie begins her discussion of the trials our Lord Jesus Christ undergoes, first by the Jewish Sanhedrin. As always, she begins with a prayer.
“In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Illumine our hearts, O Master Who loves mankind, with the pure light of Thy divine knowledge. Open the eyes of our mind to understand Thy gospel teachings. Implant in us also the fear of Thy blessed commandments, that trampling down all carnal desires, we may enter upon a spiritual manner of living, both thinking and doing such things that are well-pleasing unto Thee. For Thou art the illumination of our souls and bodies, O Christ our God, and unto Thee we ascribe glory, together with Thy Father, Who is from everlasting, and Thine all-holy, good, and life-giving Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.”
 Holy and Great Wednesday. Judas's betrayal. Duccio di Buoninsegna, 13th c.
Well, dear brothers and sisters, at last we have arrived at the program in which we begin to discuss the trials of Christ. First, the Jewish trial. I would love to be able to talk about so many important details related to the Passion, including the betrayal by Judas, the Last Supper, Peter’s denials, etc., but we will have to reserve those lessons for the time when we do an in-depth study of Matthew’s Gospel because all of our time for the next couple of programs will be taken up with the trials and the Crucifixion.
But before we begin our study of the Jewish trial, I would like to make one comment about the betrayal by Judas. People have difficulty understanding why Judas betrayed Christ. The hymns of the Church during Holy Week uniformly attribute the betrayal to greed, and that comports with the witness of the Gospels. Movies and books try to excuse Judas in some manner by saying he didn’t really want to betray Christ, that he was tricked into doing it, and he believed that Christ would extricate Himself and show His power; but all of the Gospel witnesses say that He betrayed the Lord for money. It’s a very crass motive, but it’s the truth. I don’t know why people are so fixated with this idea, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie that ever tells the truth about Judas. People seem to be quite obsessed with this.
Other people say, “How could Judas be at fault for betraying Christ when it was necessary for him to betray Christ? After all, it was prophecy.” But it was not necessary for Judas to betray Christ, even though there was a prophecy that Christ would be betrayed, because Christ said, “Woe to the person who betrays the Son of Man”, right? I mentioned to you that there were countless instances in the Gospels in which Jewish leaders wanted to or attempted to arrest Christ but they did not. In the synoptic Gospels, that is, Matthew, Mark and Luke, they usually state that the Jewish leaders did not arrest Christ because they feared the multitude. And John’s Gospel says something similar; and also, more frequently, says that Christ’s “time had not yet come” and that’s why He had not been arrested.
Judas did not make it possible for them to arrest Christ. He just made it easier. They could have and they would have arrested Him even without Judas, but there would have been a great commotion among the people because the people loved Christ. And you see there’s a great difference between the knowledge that Judas would betray Christ or the prophecy that Christ would be betrayed and predestination. Judas was not predestined to betray Christ. It was his choice. There is a difference between foreknowledge and predestination.
I’m going to give you an example that anyone can understand. Maybe it’s even a silly example. It’s a simple example, but I think you’ll get the point. Now the example is this. Whenever my husband and I would go someplace for ice cream, he would always order plain chocolate ice cream. You could take him to the fanciest ice cream parlor. You could offer a dozen varieties of ice cream: ice cream with chocolate chunks and double chocolate and fudge ripples and mint and marshmallows—it never made any difference. He only wanted plain, chocolate ice cream. Now this has gone on for the thirty years that I have known him. He only orders plain chocolate ice cream! Now, I know exactly what he’s going to choose. Does that mean that I force him to choose it? Do you see the difference? Because I know what he’s going to pick does not mean that his choice is restricted. You yourself can also probably think of many such examples among the people whom you know well.
Now I ask you: How well does God know us? God knows us better than we know ourselves. God knows the future, so of course He knew what Judas would do; but He did not compel Judas to betray Christ. It is “the will of God that all people be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” That’s from the Bible. If you don’t know where it is, look it up. You should be looking some things up on your own.
God’s will is “that all people be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” That’s a very important line that is frequently quoted in the prayers of the Orthodox Church. Christ loved Judas too, and He wanted Him to be saved. Christ died for Judas too, but Judas did not choose to be saved and instead chose to betray Christ. Sometimes a philosophical question is posed: Is there anything that God cannot do? And yes, there is one thing God cannot do: God cannot force us to love Him. That’s why predestination is absolutely incompatible with what we know about God, because God allows us free will, free choice. In order to be able to love God we have to be able to have the choice to reject Him, because if someone holds a gun to your head and says “You will love me”, well you know, that’s not love. So in order to have love we must have choice.
So all Judas did was make the arrest easier because he led the Jewish leaders to where Christ and the disciples were spending their nights that week on the Mount of Olives. The Jewish leaders were able to arrest Christ secretly and try Him secretly in the middle of the night and avoid complications by arresting Christ in a public place. Christ was going every day to the Temple and teaching. They knew He was there. They could have arrested Him but they were afraid. So Judas makes the arrest easier. He does not make it possible. They could have arrested Him and dealt with the crowd somehow, but this way they not only arrested Him easily and quietly, but they put Him on trial in the middle of the night. When the people start to find out what’s happening… do you know when they start to find out what happened? When He’s on the way to the cross! When He’s carrying His cross and they see Him in the streets of Jerusalem. We see how the people are reacting and the women are crying—that’s in the Gospel of Luke. That’s when they find out. We’ll get to the scene where they shout “crucify Him” later and we’ll talk about what was going on there.

Now there was much discussion about the Mel Gibson movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” when that came out a few years ago. Gibson defended the movie as absolutely historically accurate. I wish that were true, but unfortunately it is not true. He said that his only sources were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and he did use some of the Gospels. But he used a lot of other things, too. Some of the scenes were part of Catholic tradition. Gibson is a very devout traditionalist Catholic and it was very evident in the way he portrayed the movie that he was purposely copying some details from the “stations of the Cross,” which is a service or ritual of Catholic piety. He’s perfectly free to do that. He’s a filmmaker and there’s nothing wrong with that, except when you say that everything in them movie comes from the Gospels. He also added some other details that Catholic professors here at the University of San Diego told me come from the visions of a certain Catholic mystic.
One of our New Testament professors told me that she counted over forty historical errors in the movie. I didn’t try to count them myself, but I wouldn’t doubt that number because there was a tremendous amount of historical misrepresentation in the “Passion of the Christ” movie, and as I think of some of the errors, I might mention them. The first mistake that comes to mind has to do with the Jewish trial, and this was just absolutely glaring to me. The movie was very well done, there’s no question about that. It was very visually beautiful, its cinematography was beautiful, but I always warn people: Don’t try to learn your Bible from the movies. I have never seen a movie about a Bible story that was accurate. Another recent movie was called “One Night With the King” and it was supposed to be the story of queen Esther, which is a wonderful idea for a movie. People told me it was very good, so I rented it, but the movie was absolutely ridiculous. It departed from the true Bible story in so many ways, and some places it was just plain silly, not to mention inaccurate historically. So sometimes it’s better to just read the Bible to your kids and forget about taking them to see movies to learn about the Bible, because there are usually many, many mistakes in them. I would say the best production I have ever seen about the life of Christ, which is very well done and almost entirely accurate historically and biblically with a few exceptions, was the Franco Zeffirelli miniseries called “Jesus of Nazareth.” It’s the only one I would encourage anyone to watch, because it’s very well done and pretty accurate. But speaking of Judas in connection with this, that was one of the mistakes in the Zaffirelli miniseries. When they give Judas the money for betraying Christ they hand it to him as though it were an afterthought—“Oh by the way, why don’t you take this for your trouble”—and then he seems surprised to receive it, as though he hadn’t negotiated a price, which we know he did. So this is another example that somehow they just don’t really deal with Judas accurately.
Now returning to the question of the accuracy in the Mel Gibson movie .I thought of it because of the Jewish trial which is what we’re going to begin discussing. After Christ is arrested the movie shows Him being brought to some place, and it seems to be the Temple, but they don’t say where he is brought. It seems to be the Temple but we never really know. Now, where was Christ really brought for the trial? He was not brought to the Temple. He was brought to the house of Caiaphas. And who was there in this room for the trial in the movie? It has to be the Jewish trial that Gibson is showing in the movie because later there is the trial before Pilate, so this must be the Jewish trial. Now who was there in the movie? It’s not the Sanhedrin.
It’s a like a mob scene. There’s no trial, there are no witnesses called, and practically everybody you know is there. Mary Magdalene is there, Mary the mother of Christ is there. They find out that He’s been arrested and they run down there and they’re watching this. Peter is there, the disciples are there. It’s ridiculous. Christ is in the middle and people are shouting at him. It’s not a trial, it’s a mob scene. And one of the worst things about the movie is that it depicted Mary Magdalene as the woman who was accused of adultery whom the Lord saved from being stoned to death. This just boggled my mind. I have no idea why he would do that. Now it’s a beautiful scene, but I didn’t understand why Mel Gibson couldn’t have some other woman playing the adulterous woman rather than the actress who played Mary Magdalene. It’s a terrible insult. By the way there is absolutely no hint in the Gospels that Mary Magdalene was ever a prostitute and certainly not an adulteress. She did not live a life of sin. There’s no hint of that in the Gospel, but for some reason this has become the western tradition about Mary Magdalene and its roots is in one of the Popes, that was Gregory the Great. For some reason he identified her with the sinful woman and ever since then poor Mary Magdalene has been maligned in the West as a sinful woman. If you want to know what she was known for, look it up.
Now so this is how Mel Gibson presents the scene and it’s ridiculous, because no-one was there, except the Sanhedrin. That’s why Judas was useful, because he helped them arrest Christ in a place where there wouldn’t be a crowd. They put Him on trial before the Jewish leaders and find Him guilty of a crime, all before morning. And everything was done in secret. That’s why Judas was useful. Peter, of course, we know followed to watch, to see what would happen to Christ, but he was not in the room during the trial. He was out in the courtyard. So you might ask. “Well then, how do we know what happened to Christ at His trial?” We know because there were people who were followers of Christ who were part of the Jewish leadership. So obviously later they told the disciples about what happened. Anyhow, don’t rely on the movies to learn about the Bible. I know you people don’t, but this is a very good reason why you should not.
Now let’s move on. After they arrested Christ they were resolved to put him to death before the Passover. It was urgent. Why at that time? Why did they consider it so urgent? Now we spoke about how there were two events that made the Jewish leaders decide that they must act immediately to put Christ to death. First there was the raising of Lazarus, and secondly, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. We know from the gospel of John that after watching how the people acclaimed Christ as the Messiah and the King of Israel, the Jewish leaders had a council and they said “We have to take care of this problem right now.” And in fact the high priest states basically, a prophecy. John says it’s a prophecy. He said that “It is better than one man die rather than the whole nation be destroyed.” So they decided that even if He’s innocent it’s better for Him to be killed. Still let’s return to the question of why now. Why before the Passover? Why didn’t they wait until after the Passover had been concluded and the crowds have left Jerusalem and they could sort of do away with Him rather quietly? The answer involves why all of this happened during Passover.
Have you ever thought of how meaningful, how amazing, how beautifully conceived the plan of God was to have the Passion and the Resurrection occur during Passover? It’s remarkable. What does Passover commemorate? It commemorates the deliverance from slavery in Egypt and the entrance into the Promised Land by the Jewish people. Their leader was Moses. Now this event was the foreshadowing of what would happen later through Christ. Especially in the Gospel of Mathew we see Christ portrayed as the new Moses, the one who gave the new Law. He is the one who will now lead us from the slavery, not in Egypt, but the slavery of sin and death, and to the Promised Land, not the land of Israel, but the Kingdom of Heaven. Now this is what the Fathers of the Church called “typos”, typology. That was a very common way to interpret Old Testament events. The Fathers of the Church saw many events of the Old Testament as a foreshadowing of later events and persons in the New Testament, and this foreshadowing was called the “type.” You have the type, the Old Testament, and you have the fulfillment, or some people call it the “antitype” in the New Testament. Another example is the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. Abraham was going to sacrifice his beloved son, and that’s a foreshadowing of the fact that God the Father sacrificed His Son, His beloved and only Son.
So you see Passover it takes its name from the last of the ten plagues which Moses brought against Egypt so Pharaoh would allow the Hebrew slaves to leave. The last plague was the death of the first born in the land, but Moses told the Hebrew people to sacrifice a lamb and place the blood of the lamb over their door posts, so when the Angel of Death came, it passed over the houses of the Hebrews and killed only the firstborn of the Egyptians. So the Hebrews were saved by the blood of the lamb and that’s why Christ is called The Lamb. We too have passed over, or will pass over, from death into life because of the blood of the Lamb. Christians have always understood these Old Testament events as “types,” which had their fulfillment later in the New Testament.
Now I’m going to ask you a question I want you to ponder. Why was there no lamb at the Last Supper? Because the Last Supper talks about bread and wine and herbs but there is no lamb mentioned. Historically, it is true that Christ knowing, that He would be dead on the day of Passover, ate the meal with His disciples early, “in anticipation.” He provided for them the theological meaning of His death, instituting the Eucharist within the context of the Passover meal. That might be a historical reason but that’s not the real reason why there was no lamb. We’ll talk about it when we talk about the Crucifixion - see if you arrive at the right conclusion.
So why is it that He institutes the Eucharist at the Passover meal and then He says: “Do this in remembrance of me”? I know that our Protestant friends say that that means that Communion is a memorial meal, “Do this in remembrance of me.” It’s purely “symbolic.” But the consistent witness in the Bible is that Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ. You can’t read John 6 - which is written in the 1st century -you can’t read that and conclude that it was not considered the Body and Blood of Christ. You can’t read 1st Corinthians 11 - which was even earlier than the Gospel of John - and not conclude that early Christians believed that Communion is the actual Body and Blood of Christ. That was the teaching of the early Church. That is the consistent witness from Apostolic times through today. So why did He say: “Do this in remembrance of me”? Because when they would gather for a Passover type of meal with the bread and the wine, from then on, rather than remembering at this time of year the deliverance by Moses from slavery in Egypt and entrance into the Promised Land, they would now remember Christ and His deliverance of us from the slavery of sin and death to the Promised Land of the Kingdom of Heaven. That’s why He said, “Do this in remembrance of ME.” That’s why the Orthodox Church continues to tie its celebration of Pascha to the Jewish celebration of Passover. You see, that connection has been lost in the West because western Christians celebrate their Easter before Jewish Passover. This is happening on a consistent basis most years. They don’t really see the connection, but we do. We see the connection. We celebrate Pascha after Passover, and this is why: because the Lord said do this in remembrance of me, so we do it. We remember the Christian Passover. The Christian Passover happened after the Jewish Passover was completed. Christ rose after the Jewish Passover so we must wait for the Jewish Passover too. That’s the reason for the difference in the dates. The way we calculate the dates is exactly the same except for that detail which we insist upon because of the deep connection to the meaning of Passover.
So back to our story. Why did the Jewish authorities decide that Christ must be done away with before the feast of Passover? Well, the Jews came to Jerusalem for the Passover from all over the world, but certainly those who were in Palestine, who were strong enough to travel to walk to Jerusalem who were living within a few days walk of Jerusalem, they would come to the city for the Passover. The normal population of the city was about 50,000 people, but during Passover it swelled to more than four or five times that size. So it would swell to about 200,000 - 250,000 people. Now, when you have a large crowd of people together at one place at the same time, and especially when there’s a lot of religious and nationalistic fervor associated with it, you have the potential for riots and insurrection. Passover was always a time of strong nationalistic and religious feeling because the Jews were remembering their deliverance from the slavery under the Egyptians and their hope remained alive for the Messiah to appear and deliver them from the Romans. So every Passover Jerusalem was a pressure cooker ready to explode, even during an ordinary Passover. But this was not an ordinary Passover because among them was someone who had just raised a man from the dead, Lazarus, and was welcomed into the city like a triumphant hero. It would not have taken much to spark an insurrection, a riot, a revolt against the Romans had Christ wanted to start one. So the threat was very, very real. The Jewish leaders did not know that Christ had no intentions of starting a revolution They didn’t know that He had no political aspirations whatsoever, but as far as they could see, there was a real threat.
Now Pilate was not usually in Jerusalem. The capital of the province, the Roman province of Judea, was not Jerusalem because the Romans did not like Jerusalem. It didn’t have anything fun. There were no Roman temples, there were no baths. It didn’t have the usual amenities that Romans liked to have. So the capital of Judea was a magnificent Roman city built by Herod the Great on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea which he dedicated to Augustus and called it Caesarea, specifically “Caesarea by the Sea” or “Caesarean Maritima.” The ruins of that city have been uncovered by the way, and if you ever go to Israel you could see parts of it. That’s where Paul was imprisoned before he was sent to Rome when he appealed to Caesar and you could see the very theatre where St. Paul preached to Herod Agrippa. So that’s were Pilate spent most of his time, but during Passover he would come, (and every Roman governor would come), to Jerusalem with a large number of soldiers as a big show of strength to discourage rebellion. So the Romans were very aware of the potential for an uprising during the Passover season. And this is why Pilate releases a prisoner for them, not out of the goodness of his heart, but to try to pacify the crowds and let off some steam. And by the way, at this point the Romans are not involved. I have seen some movies where they show Jesus - I can’t remember if the Gibson movie was like this - but I’ve seen where they showed Jesus being arrest by Roman soldiers. That did not happen. He was arrested by Temple guards. The Jews had their own temple police force, their own security system, and they were sent to arrest Christ. The Romans are not involved yet. That will happen after the Jewish trial.
So now let’s begin the Jewish trial. First I’m going to read for you the entire text of Matthew regarding the Jewish trial. Now this is the Revised Standard Version and its generally speaking, more accurate. The Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James Version and later when we do our introduction to the Bible I will explain to you why I think they chose the NKJV, but that’s not important at this point. I’m going to be reading Matthew 26:57, skipping over verse 58 which describes Peter following behind, and then continuing with the trial, 59 through 66. “Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered. Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward and said, "This fellow said, `I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.'" And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?" They answered, "He deserves death."”
 Holy and Great Friday. Christ being questioned by Caiaphas the high priest. Fresco in Staro Nagoricno, Macedonia. 12th-14th c.
Let’s begin with that first verse, verse 57. “Then those who had seized Jesus led him Caiphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered.” By almost any conceivable standard the time and the place of this Jewish trial of Christ violated Jewish law. According to the Mishnah which is the Jewish legal code, a Jewish criminal court could only convene during the day and it was required to adjourn at sunset. If the proceedings, which are detailed in the Gospels, were in fact the Jewish trials of Christ, they violated Jewish law because they occurred at night. Now there is some controversy about the Mishnah, which was written down after the time of Christ. It was based on oral law and there’s some controversy about how well it reflected actual practices during Second Temple Judaism, during the 1st century basically, toward the end of the time when the Temple still existed. So there’s some controversy about whether it does reflect the standards. We know they had standards and they were very good standards. It makes sense to only allow trials to take place during the daytime because trials which take place at night, especially in the middle of the night, are apt to produce unjust results. There’s a lack of fairness there. There’s an obvious lack of fairness when things are done secretly. This is why today in all civilized countries trials are performed in public, so people can see. It’s a measure of protection for the individual accused. So if this is in fact the Jewish trial, and I’m saying “if” because it’s possible that this was some other proceeding designed to gather evidence to use against Christ because it seems that the following morning there was yet another trial which was in fact a mere formality. It seems that in the morning there was another meeting of the council because in Matthew 27:1-2 it says this: “When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took council against Jesus to put Him to death.” Doesn’t that seem strange to you? Because we just heard about the trial in chapter 26, now chapter 27 begins and it seems to be repeating itself. Well, probably what happened is that the middle of the night “trial” was really more like a preliminary hearing or some way to gather evidence against Christ to have the official trial the following morning. The same thing is reflected in Mark 15:1. Luke describes the trial which took place in the morning in 22:66. He doesn’t talk about the middle of the night trial. So there seems to have been another trial in the morning which involved the same persons, the same council, echoes the same condemnation of the previous night. However, that does not mean that it was a legal proceeding, because criminal trials were not permitted on the eve of the Sabbath or the eve of a holiday. That particular day, if they held the actual official trial on Friday morning, that day was both the eve of the Sabbath and eve of a holiday, which is Passover. Another aspect of Jewish law which was violated was that a guilty verdict could not be pronounced the same day as the trial. This is another very intelligent rule. Judges were required to consider their verdict overnight unless they were going to acquit the person. But if they were going to find them guilty, they had to be allowed time to think about it. Again, you can see how this would avoid injustice, avoid the railroading of an individual or making decisions or judgments based on emotions of the moment. So whether the trials recorded by the Evangelists was the actual trial in the middle of the night or some sort of preliminary hearing or type of investigation to bind Christ over until the next morning - any way you look at it - the Jewish trial of Christ was conducted in violation of basic Jewish law. So, on a number of other points that we will not go into, the trial and condemnation of Christ violated basic requirements, and even fundamental fairness, because you don’t have a trial of someone in the middle of the night. Also of course there were other requirements of the law which were violated. But I’m sure that the Jewish leaders felt that these were emergency measures because of the extreme danger of the situation because of what Christ represented.
Now let’s take a look at verse 59. “Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus that they might put Him to death”. “Now” refers here to the council. We presume that the council is the Great Sanhedrin, although it is never called the Sanhedrin. It’s called that in the hymns of the Church on Holy Week. Why do we think it was the Great Sanhedrin? First, because the person who was presiding over this trial was the high priest, and he presided over the Sanhedrin. And, secondly, only the Great Sanhedrin had jurisdiction in three types of critical cases. They had “first jurisdiction.” They were the court of “first jurisdiction” - which means that they were the only court that could try three types of people. First, a false prophet, which is the basis of the charge against Christ. Secondly, the king. And third, the high priest. And it’s so ironic that they think they’re trying Him as a prophet, but who they are really trying is the King of Israel and the High Priest of Heaven. The Great Sanhedrin was the highest ruling body of the land. It consisted of 72 men who were the leading figures of Jerusalem, including chief priests, Sadducees elders and some Pharisees. Under Jewish law, the Sanhedrin was only allowed to convene during the day and only in a special room in the Temple complex called the “Chamber of Hewn Stones.” So, here again, we see this law being violated, this law requiring them to meet in a specific place.
Now there were other Sanhedrins. This is why it’s called the Great Sanhedrin. It’s the most important ruling body of the Jews. There was no king in Judea at this time, so the Sanhedrin was the legislative body. It enacted regulations for the religious life and the political life of the people. It was the highest authority in the land. So there was a Great Sanhedrin of 72, there were also Lesser Sanhedrins of 23 judges and then even smaller courts of 3 judges found in villages and towns throughout the area.
So it tells us that the council met and “sought false testimony.” That’s not a good translation. It really should say “they were seeking”, because it is the imperfect tense (ezetoun). “They were seeking false testimony,” not the aorist tense “they sought.” Because this word – “they were seeking” - suggests that they were searching for witnesses for a period of time, witnesses whose testimony could convict Christ. This seemed to take a while because it says “they were seeking.” The falseness of the witnesses and their testimony is emphasized by Matthew. The council searches for people to come forward. They’re searching for false witnesses. I’m sure they would be happy with true witnesses but they weren’t able to find any! And so they are searching even for false testimony, so long as it will stick. And this false testimony of course highlights the treachery of the leaders, the injustice of the trial and of course the innocence of Christ. Verse 60 reads “but they found none” (no false witnesses) “though many false witnesses came forward”… “at last, two came forward”. So what does that mean? “They found none, though many came forward, then two came forward.” At least two witnesses were required for a conviction under Jewish law. And furthermore, their testimony had to agree on all relevant details. So you could bring a thousand witnesses to offer testimony, but if their testimony was conflicting it could not be admitted into evidence. So finally they found two. Now this seems to have taken quite a long time. They probably took two people aside and said “Look, get your story straight and come forward with something that you’ll agree upon so we can be done with this.”
So finally they find two who testify to the same thing. Now there’s a charge that can be brought. By the way, in Jewish trials all witnesses were men. Women were never permitted to be witnesses in Jewish courts. They were excluded from testifying along with insane people, children, the mentally retarded and anyone with a handicap. So women were lumped together with those groups because they were considered :inherently unreliable” witnesses. I think it’s very interesting that they’re the ones who become the witnesses of the Resurrection. There’s a lot of meaning to that, isn’t there? So all of these witnesses were men. That’s one reason - why the disciples when the women come and say “The tomb is empty” or “We have seen the Lord – the disciples don’t believe them, because women were not considered reliable as witnesses, in a Jewish mind anyhow. Christianity changed all of that, thank God.
Verse 61”: “So they found two who came forward and said: ‘This fellow said, “I am able to destroy the Temple of God and to build it in three days.” ‘ ” Let’s start with the beginning, “this fellow said.” Now did Christ ever say that? Did Christ ever say “I am able to destroy the Temple of God and to build it in three days”? Usually when I ask that question most people say “Yes, He said that.” But He never said that. He said something similar. That statement is not found in any Gospel. He never promised to destroy the Temple. A similar statement can be found in John 2:19. “After Christ cleansed the Temple, the Jewish leaders asked Him by what authority do you do this?” Remember the question about authority that we addressed last time? And Christ replied: “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” And John tells us that He is referring to His body. So His authority would be proven by His resurrection. Now the witnesses at Jesus’ trial completely distort the statement. According to the witnesses, “This man said ‘I will destroy the Temple,’ ” the one doing the destroying is Christ and the Temple being destroyed is Herod’s Temple, the Second Temple. But in Christ’s statement the ones doing the destroying are the Jews and the Temple being destroyed is Christ’s own body. So they got it wrong. But the council didn’t care because at last now they had two witnesses who agreed and the charge can stick. Now there is a trial.
Now before we move on let’s consider why this was such a big deal. What if Christ really did say that He would destroy the Temple, because He did predict the destruction of the Temple. It’s interesting that they don’t level that charge. Perhaps because they didn’t know about it. When Christ predicted the destruction of the Temple, He was standing on the Mount of Olives. The disciples were admiring the beauty of the Temple from afar, then Christ said “There will not be one stone left on top of another” and they were shocked. So He predicted the destruction of the Temple. What if He really did say “I will destroy the temple”? No one could destroy a huge Temple, let alone build it up again in three days. Why would the Jewish leaders be so upset about what clearly seems to be an impossible claim? Well, if you look in the book of Jeremiah chapter 26, you will see that the priests and the false prophets at the time condemned Jeremiah to death for predicting - merely predicting - the destruction of the Temple. He was not in fact executed. They even pronounced a very similar judgment, Jeremiah 26:11. Although Christ was eventually condemned for blasphemy, the testimony regarding the destruction of the Temple was a historical truth that this is one of the factors which motived the Jewish leaders to arrest and try Christ. They were concerned for the survival of the Temple. The statement which the false witnesses say Christ made was a serious one. It was considered a threat against the Temple. Now the significance of the Temple in Jerusalem cannot be overstated and really can’t be comprehended by us. The Jews believed that through the Temple God dwelt among His people. He affirmed their election as chosen ones. He was with them, His presence was there. I mean, they didn’t think of it in a silly way, that God was confined to the Temple, but His presence was with the people by means of the Temple. And when the zealots succeeded in starting a revolt against the Romans later in the year 66 they never believed that the Temple would be destroyed. They believed, in fact, that they were certain to win because God was with them. When the Temple was destroyed in the year 70 as Christ had predicted, it was, along with the Holocaust, the most tragic event in the history of the Jewish people. Judaism was never the same after that.
At the time the Temple occupied about 25% of the land in the city of Jerusalem. Now imagine the city where you live, and 25% of it taken up with one big complex. How important would that be, just from an economic standpoint? Now the Temple was not only economically vital for the livelihood of practically everyone in Jerusalem, but it was a center of national life and identity. It was the political center, the religious center of the nation. It’s not surprising that the threat of its destruction would be viewed with the utmost seriousness. Yes, for economic reasons, but also for religious ones. It would be saying that God had abandoned His people. So these statements really struck at the heart of Judaism. And, of course, we see that the chief priests and the high priests are alarmed at these statements about the Temple. Now even though of course this was a seemingly impossible claim, they can’t accept the idea that God would allow the Temple to be destroyed. But there’s more to it than this as we will see later when we continue the interchange between the high priest and Christ, because after this, the high priest stands up and asks the Lord: “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” Next time we are going to continue our discussion and see what Jesus said to Caiaphas and what Caiaphas says to Him, and what it all means. But for now we must conclude, and we will conclude with our prayer: “Lord, now let Thy servants depart in peace according to Thy word, for our eyes have seen Thy salvation which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of Thy people Israel. Amen.”
Trials and Crucifixion of Christ, Part 2b The Traps
  Православие.Ru, 29 марта 2017 г. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/102237.htm
Dr. Jeannie Constantinou
See Part 2a  Jesus Talks with the Pharisees. K Lebedev. Photo: /biblia-zhivopis.ru Now continuing our discussion of the Gospel readings in early Holy Week, let’s look at Great and Holy Monday evening. Monday evening contains the questions asked by the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes to trick or to humiliate Christ. This is a continuation from Matthew, and comes from chapter 22 of Matthew. The first question they ask Him is the one we’re all familiar with about paying taxes to Caesar. It tells us that the Pharisees went and took council how they might entangle Him in His talk (and you can understand how after that insulting reference to them as the wicked tenants, they really wanted to try to trap Him), so the Pharisees sent their disciples to Him with the Herodians to ask Him this question about paying taxes to Caesar. The Herodians and rendering unto Caesar I haven’t really talked to you too much about the Herodians. This is another group of Jews. They were supporters of the Herodian dynasty and basically the kings, the Herods, and their courtiers. The Herodians remained in power only at the consent of the Romans. When we do our introduction to the Bible, when we get to the New Testament, I will tell you why some parts of Palestine were ruled by Roman procurators and other parts had kings named “Herod,” and who these various Herods were. We’ll talk about that in the future, but basically, Jesus was a subject of king Herod because he was a Galilean. So the Herodians would be very much in favor of a tax because that’s how they remained in power by consent of the Romans. So if they paid the tax and they rendered the tax to Romans, they got to keep their power. But the tax represented Roman domination and it was a source of great controversy among the Jews. There were many radicals, such as zealots, (the zealots were yet another group that I didn’t tell you about), but the zealots were people who wanted to overthrow Roman rule in the holy land by force, by the use of violence. So the Zealots opposed the paying of the tax, while the Herodians favored the tax since that’s how they got to rule—they collected the tax and Rome allowed them to rule. The Pharisees generally went ahead and paid the tax because they were realists and they knew that they had to cooperate with the Romans if the nation was to survive. But nonetheless, there was something rather unsavory in the mind of the Pharisees toward paying the tax, and the most radical Jews opposed it, as I said. So they ask Him this question: “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God and truth and you care for no one, nor do you regard anyone’s position. Tell us what you think: Is it lawful to pay the tax to Caesar or not?” So you see how they start? They begin by attempting to lull Christ into making a statement contrary to His interests by flattery. They flatter Him before they ask the question. And the irony that Chrysostom points out is that everything they say about Him is true. He is a teacher, they know He’s true, that he teaches the way of God, and that He doesn’t care about anyone’s opinion nor regards anyone’s position. So everything they say is true, but they don’t believe their own words. And the flattery is so obvious. They come addressing Him as “teacher,” and say “we know you’re from God,” and, “you say the truth.” But, previously they showed that they despise Him, they insulted Him, and they don’t consider Him a teacher because they have no respect for Him. Now they call Him teacher and come to ask Him a question? This is very similar to the case of the woman accused of adultery. Why did they bring the woman accused of adultery before Christ to ask Him whether or not she ought to be stoned? Why did they ask Him for a legal ruling (because that’s what they’re doing)? They have no respect for Him. It’s a trap, and it’s quite obviously a trap.  A denarius of Caesar. Author unknown (school of A. Matveev). 1730s. Tyumen Museum of Fine Arts. Photo: www.christianart.ru “So tell us what you think? Is it lawful to pay the tax or not?” Does God permit the paying of the tax? They’re not asking whether it’s lawful from a Roman perspective, of Roman law—of course it is, it’s required by Roman law—but whether it was acceptable in the eyes of God for the Jews to submit to a pagan emperor by means of a tax, because by doing so you’re recognizing the role of the emperor, that he is supreme; you’re recognizing his authority by paying tax to him. Now if Christ told them not to pay the tax, of course He’d be marked as a rebel and He would be considered a threat to Roman order. That would be perfect. He could be charged with sedition right away. But if He tells them that they ought to pay the tax, then other people would say, “Look He’s with the Romans and He’s really not one of us.” Either way the Pharisees and the Herodians believed that Jesus was in a trap. No matter what He answered, He was going to answer in some manner that would create a charge against Him. Either He supported the Romans or He was against the Romans, and either way it was not good for Him. Now this tax was a large amount of money. It was one denarius, which was one day’s wage. But it had to be paid in a Roman coin, which bore the image of the emperor. The emperor at that time was Tiberius Caesar, who ruled from 14 AD to 37, and on the coin was not only the picture of the emperor (and by the way picture of the emperor was pretty realistic, it actually looked like the person) But around the coin, the way we have “in God we trust” or “United States of America”, it read “Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti Filius Augustus, Pontifix Maximus” (“Tiberius Caesar August Son of the Divine Augustus, High Priest”), which is basically saying he’s the son of god. He’s the son of “the divine Augustus” (because Augustus was dead he had been proclaimed a god), and he’s the high priest. Christ is very aware of their malice and He responds to them very severely; Chrysostom says that He addresses them as “hypocrites” because their malice is so obvious due to their flattery. The Lord denounces them as hypocrites, which is more than the usual severity, since their wickedness was complete and so manifest that He reveals their thoughts. So yes, they’re being hypocrites when they call Him “teacher”, because they don’t consider Him a teacher. The Lord answers by turning the tables on them again, forcing them to prove His point, to decide the answer to the question, which gives him a clear victory. He says, “Show me the coin of the tax.” Now the tax had to be paid with Roman coin, and there were many, many kinds of coins that circulated at the time. The Jews minted their own coins. This is the reason why the money changers were outside the Temple changing money, because you were not permitted to walk into the Temple with Roman coins since they had the image of the emperor on them, with those blasphemous words around the outside of it. You had to change your money for Temple coin, which had a menorah on it. So the truth is that many of the Jews did not like to carry these coins because the coin was an idolatrous image. The most pious Jews refused to carry that coin because of its idolatrous image, the picture of the emperor, and the blasphemous statement that said Tiberius was divine. Render unto Caesar So here they are: Obviously there were moneychangers in Judea at the Temple and other places, but the most pious Jews would not carry the coin. So, He says: “Show me the coin.” And they take it out! They produce it very easily, which showed that they were not as pious as they pretended to be. It’s really a wonderful moment. Now He says to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” and of course “to God the things that are God’s.” Now “render” means to “give back,” not simply to give, but to give back. It is the verb that’s used for the settling or paying off a debt, so it refers to something that is rightfully owed. Chrysostom said this, and many interpreters recognized this as being the case. So since the tax was paid with a Roman coin and it had Caesar’s image on it, the coin belonged to the emperor, it belongs to him—just as when you put your name on something it belongs to you. So paying the tax was simply giving him back what was already his, and since they carried his coin then they should be paying his taxes. What about the reference to render to God the things that are God’s? Since they pretended to honor God they should do that as well, and the Lord turns the tables on them in this way by reminding them that God also has demands. There are things that are rightfully due to Him, and they should be more concerned about rendering to God what belonged to Him than be preoccupied with what was due to Caesar. Chrysostom discusses how every sphere of life has its obligations, and it is possible to meet one’s political or social obligations without being disloyal to God, especially where there is no conflict between what is owed in each area. And when the Lord says, “Render to Caesar,” He’s only speaking of those things that are of no detriment to godliness. “Whose wife will she be in the resurrection?” Well, the Lord succeeds very effectively and brilliantly in stopping the mouths of the Pharisees, and now come the Sadducees to ask Him a question. The Gospel tells us that the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, come with a hypothetical argument designed to basically try to make the Lord look foolish for supporting the idea of resurrection. The Sadducees could not accept resurrection because they believed it couldn’t be found in the Torah. Remember, they accepted only the Torah, the first five books, as Scripture. So they used the example in the Mosaic Law, which obliges a man to raise up children for his dead brother by making a point that resurrection is incompatible with the Torah. They create this ridiculous hypothetical situation. They say that a man and a woman got married and the man died before the couple had any children, so the wife marries his brother, then he dies without having any children, then she marries a third brother and he dies before they could have any children. She ends up marrying seven brothers (because none of them produce children) and then she dies. And of course the question is: “Whose wife will she be in the resurrection?” Now the requirement that someone marry his brother’s wife if they died without leaving children is called, “levirate marriage”. It’s based on Deuteronomy 25:5-10, and the idea was that it was considered a very terrible thing for a woman to be a widow and childless because you needed children to support you in your old age. There was no such thing as social security and food stamps and so forth, so children were extremely important. They give the example with these seven brothers. Now, the seven brothers are intended to simply ridicule the belief in the resurrection by making the scenario so absurd. Although in the Old Testament there were those like Solomon and David who practiced polygamy, that’s not what the Sadducees are suggesting here, but polyandry: one woman with many husbands. We never see that in the Old Testament. In the legal sense they’re asking whose wife will she be when they’re all together in the afterlife? You simply cannot have seven men married to one woman. You can have a man with seven wives, but not a woman with seven husbands. But the question is moot, because the life of the resurrection is not like this life. Now Chrysostom remarks that the Lord does not speak to the Sadducees as harshly as He did the Pharisees, because their question was based on ignorance, not craftiness; so He answers them like a teacher. But I like the Lord’s answer because even though He’s not really harsh with them I think it’s a little bit insulting anyhow, because He says to them, “You err, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” It’s a wonderful line. He addresses each of these issues in reverse order. First, He shows that they do not understand the power of God, that is, what is the resurrection is about. Life after resurrection will be very different from this life. There will be no reason for procreation, there will be no jealousy, there will be no reason for the exclusiveness of marriage because it is a spiritual existence. In the resurrection, “They neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels.” Now Chrysostom notes that just because “they do not marry”, that is not what makes them like angels. He pays very careful attention to the way the Lord phrases it. He says: “because they are like angels, they have a spiritual existence and they do not marry.” This leads Chrysostom to sermonize on one of his favorite topics, the spiritual life, especially the monastic life. But I think it’s very, very interesting that he seems to indirectly affirm the importance of marriage and life in the world, because he seems to be correcting a misinterpretation of the verse. I think that it’s possible that people were using this verse to support the monastic life as superior to the married life. Because Chrysostom says they’re not angels because they don’t marry, but because they are like angels—that is why they don’t marry. So he’s very, very careful with his exegesis of this statement, and I think he seems to be countering an argument and drawing a different conclusion. The angelic life Now, there’s no question that Chrysostom highly esteemed the monastic life. He was a monk himself, but among all of the Fathers he probably has the most balanced view of marriage and family life. And though he goes on to talk about the monks and hold them up as examples to his congregation, he makes sure first that the understanding of that verse is correct: One is not angelic because one does not marry; but because one is already living like the angels, then one does not marry. It’s true that the monastic life is called “the angelic life” because monastics are already living a spiritual kind of life. And you might have noticed perhaps in the past, that there are certain icons of St. John the Forerunner in which he seems to have wings behind him. This is because St. John lived this kind of angelic existence in the desert, in which he lived a life of great askesis, spiritual struggle and deprivation, etc. And because of this he is also like a forerunner of the monastics. This is why he’s shown with wings behind him—not because he really had wings, but because he was angelic in his way of life. Of course, just because the Lord says this, you should never think that we become angels in the afterlife. We are not angels and we will never be angels, despite what movies try to show us—that when people die they become angels. No, we become like angels because we will have a spiritual existence. “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and of Jacob.” How does the Lord respond to their challenge to defend the resurrection on the basis of Scripture, which they acknowledge? The Sadducees do not accept the resurrection on the basis of the books of the prophets because Sadducees don’t accept the book of the prophets as Scripture—only the Torah. So the Lord responds to them using Scriptures that they recognize as authoritative. “Have you not read: ‘I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and of Jacob’.” Okay, so where does He say this? When the Lord introduced Himself to Moses in the burning bush, He said, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Now, this expression in Hebrew “I am the God of” means having a loving, caring relationship with someone. You don’t have relationships with dead people. So, this quotation was meant to illustrate that God’s relationship with the nation of Israel is a living one, and the patriarchs of the Old Testament must still be living, because at the time when Moses met God in the burning bush and He said, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” They had long since died. Those patriarchs were dead, and yet God refers to them as alive because He doesn’t say, “I was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” but, “I am the God…” So this is a very strong argument from the Torah, using the Scriptures that the Sadducees recognized, to establish the existence of the resurrection; and it shows Him to be the superior interpreter of the Scriptures. And there you have it—the Sadducees also fall short in their effort to discredit Christ. “What is the greatest commandment?” Then we have the third question, and that is, “What is the greatest commandment”? The Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, and one of them—as it says, a lawyer—came to test Him, to ask Him a question. Remember that “lawyer” means he’s a scribe, a legal expert. It’s not as much of a trap, but perhaps they wish to see if He would answer in some other fashion, because the Pharisees like to talk about the law. They would discuss, “What is the greatest law?” and they would try to organize the laws, and synthesize and systematize them. However, when the lawyer comes to ask Him this question, which I think is kind of a softball question, but it’s asked to see how He might respond to this. Perhaps they wish to engage Him in some kind of debate or dispute to discredit Him. The Lord uses this exchange to turn the tables on them again, and ask them a question. First let’s look at the question that the Scribe, or lawyer, asked of Him. “What is the greatest commandment?” And of course the Lord answers, “You shall love your Lord God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” So, that’s the first one: to love God; and secondly, your neighbor as yourself. This quotation comes from Deuteronomy 6:5, and it was a very important phrase; it was recited several times a day by pious Jews as part of the Shema Israel. “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” That is called the Shema, and this idea that you must love the Lord your God was absolutely fundamental to Judaism, while the second, being like it, “love your neighbor as yourself,” comes from Leviticus 19:18. He says, “On these two hang the whole of the Law and the Prophets”; that is, the commandment to love God and love one’s neighbor cannot be separated and everything else depends upon it. If you observe those, then that’s all you really need to do. “Who is David’s son?” After this He turns and asks them a question: “Who is David’s son?” This is a very, very important passage. The Pharisees are gathered together, they come now to join the discussion. He asks them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” And of course they say, “He’s David’s son.” This was the tradition among the Jews, and it was the prophecy in the Scriptures—a prophecy that the Lord fulfilled. He’s David’s son. The Lord descended from David according to the flesh, in His humanity. Now what the Lord wants to illustrate for them is that the Messiah is the son of David but not just the son of David—he’s much more than that. He says, “If he’s David’s son, how is it that David in the Spirit says: ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand while I make thine enemies thy footstool”’?” Now this statement, how David said “in the Spirit”, reflects the Jewish belief in the inspiration of prophecy by the Spirit of God. Even though this is a psalm, it is considered prophecy; David spoke and wrote the psalms under divine inspiration. And so when David, in the Spirit, that is, being inspired by God, says, “the Lord (that is, we would say, God the Father) said to my Lord (here we mean the Christ): ‘Sit at my right hand’”. The word “Lord” is used for both: “Kyrios.” David is the speaker. The first reference to “Lord” refers to God, we would say, the Father. The second reference to “Lord” must refer to someone superior to David because He is being addressed by King David as “my Lord.” “The Lord said to my Lord,” referring to two separate persons. So if being son of David is what makes the Messiah great, because he is the “son of David,” how can the Messiah be greater than David? How can he be David’s Lord? So the second person referred to cannot simply be David’s son. If what makes him great and gives him the high status of Messiah is the fact that he’s David’s son, he can’t be greater than David himself. But here he clearly is, since David is addressing him as “my Lord.” So, Christ uses this psalm, which, by the way, had been used to crown new kings, to make statement about the Messiah. The Messiah must be more than simply David’s son, and the clear implication is that the Messiah is God’s Son—because of the use of the word “Lord” in both instances, he identifies the Messiah with God. Very, very powerful. This psalm 109 (or 110 in the western numbering) was very popular among the early Christians and was used to refer to the exaltation of Christ as Lord. This explanation was so profound, so deep, so amazing, that he shut up His opponents for good. And the Gospel says that, “After that, no-one dared to ask Him any more questions.” The “Woes” The readings continue on Great and Holy Monday evening with Matthew chapter 23. We read part of chapter 23, which is, “the woes to the Scribes and Pharisees.” There is an entire chapter in Matthew that consists of a scathing denunciation of the Scribes and the Pharisees. It summarizes the conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish leadership. We can clearly see the kinds of things He denounces them for, which motivate them to have Him arrested, put on trial and put to death. He says, “Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees!” What is a “woe”? It’s a lamentation. It’s an expression of grief, of great disappointment, a very strong denunciation that comes very close to a curse. It’s the opposite of a beatitude. You have the blessings, the beatitudes, “blessed are the poor in spirit,” and the opposite of that is a “woe.” The Prophets very often addressed the people in this way when the people were not listening to them. They would say “woe” to the people in power and position. It’s a pronouncement of judgment and warning to others. What kinds of things does He denounce the Pharisees for? We won’t go through the whole reading, but basically He denounces them for seeking glory and honors, preaching but not practicing what they preach. Accusing them of hypocrisy, He uses the term “hypocrites” many times. “Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” He accuses them of binding heavy burdens on people’s lives, which are the Pharisaic teachings of the requirements for ritual purity, the thousands of regulations. Their emphasis on all of these rules had made the Law so burdensome that no one could bear it. They bound regulations upon people and imposed on them these heavy burdens. They loved their titles and being given places of honor at feasts and the best seats. They loved flattery, they loved honor, they loved glory. He condemns them for corrupting the converts when they manage to make a convert; they corrupt that person rather than leading him toward godliness. He condemns them for observing insignificant laws while ignoring the more important things. He says, “You tithe the mint and the cumin”— they even tithe the spices in their house—“while ignoring the weightier matters of the Law: justice, love mercy.” They “strain at the gnat and swallow the camel.” This goes on for quite a long time, and you can easily see why the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus killed. I know this has been a very long podcast. Thank you for bearing with me. Next time we will begin with the betrayal, the arrest and the Jewish trial of the Lord, and we will do a very detailed study of the Jewish trial, verse by verse in the Gospel of Matthew. Until then, may God keep you all in His wonderful and loving care. Let’s conclude with our prayer: “Lord, now let Thy servants depart in peace according to Thy word, for our eyes have seen Thy salvation which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of Thy people Israel. Amen.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)