Did we miss something about Yochanon, talmid of Yeshua?
- By Yahudim
- Messianic Judaism
- 8 Replies
Berchot v'Shalom be multiplied to you all; that is, Blessings and Peace;
We are all keenly aware of the arrest of Messiah and Kefa's thrice denial of Yeshua. But seldom do we note this oddity concerning Yochanon (or John, the 'second talmid' in this account). These verses begin with the arrest of Messiah:
(note: scripture quotes are from the CJB)
Also worthy of the gentle readers attention, is that this 'trial' was conducted at night and outside the auspices of the Sanhedrin, therefore contravened the intimations and mandates of Torah; the law of Judea. Taken in total, these facts suggest that any suspicion that the verdict was a foregone conclusion was more than mere supposition. Yeshua Ha Mashiach was to be assassinated, both in character and in fact.
There is much more to this story than the forgiveness of Kefa for his denial of Yeshua or the clearly political nature of the arrest and the extremely questionable circumstances surrounding His subsequent murder. There is no shortage of expositions to this end. So, I would first direct your careful attention to the deference shown to the 'other talmid' - as John was fond of describing himself.
In light of the discovery of the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' in 1948, which were first attributed to 'celibate monks' and only recently linked to the Zadokim (the sons of Zadok and the scripturally designated High Priesthood determined by King David). It is clear from multiple sources that the Hasmoneans were illegally holding the coveted office of High Priest in the time of Yeshua's visitation. What is not clear to me is the status of the lesser Cohens. Were they too Hasmonean or actual Aaronic Cohens according to Torah?
As background, it should be noted that the 'other talmid' (known as John to most Christians), was estimated to be in his late teens by a majority of scholars, although certainty is elusive. But it would seem he had not the respect one might impart to another based on age and accomplishment, as he had yet to achieve either. No matter his vocation or avocations, he would be reckoned as an apprentice or student until around the age of 30 within that culture.
So how did John gain the favor shown? I suspect it was familial in nature, as you will read later. There is little doubt he was admitted into the courtyard without question, so it seems he was recognized by the keeper of the gate. The same might be said of his entry into the household of the former high priest, as this was clearly a contrived event, conducted well away from the prying eyes of the populous and the cleansing influence of sunlight.
On the topic of the 'other talmid', I found the following to be an amazing account. Astonishing really. So I bolded and underlined the germane portions; those that gives rise to a wholly new set of revelations and speculations.
For me, the standout revelation is this: After the crucifixion of Yeshua 'John...who reclined on the Lord’s bosom...became a priest wearing the mitre'!
Wait, what? Wow!
We should note: The only cohen (priest) that wears the 'miter' (also known as that sacerdotal plate) was the High Priest. This is the same person that is the 'other talmid' that was present the night of Messiah's arrest and trial, with Peter, in the home of the Hasmonean High Priest. So this begs the question, why would John serve as High Priest after knowing the truth imparted by Messiah Yeshua?
The Ark of the Covenant had not been seen since the Babylonian captivity. The 'Presence' had departed the Temple even before then. Yeshua had revealed His true nature to His disciples. So the question remains with John - why?
Due to John's age and the fact that the Temple only stood for another forty years, had this occurred as recorded, I would presume that this event must have transpired at least fifteen years after the Crucifixion, at a minimum. But the question remains; Did he undertake such action without his Master's approval and consent? Without it, that choice would difficult for me to fathom. On the other hand, Yeshua knew John and everything about him. So this may have been Messiah Yeshua's doing. But again, why? And to what end?
While there is room galore to speculate, evidence generally supports a familial relationship to the Hasmoneans and a candidacy for that high office. But again and again, why and to what end?
With what is now known of the Hasmoneans, the Zadokites, the Pharisees, the Zealots and the many other divisions among the population and with the turmoil intrinsic to the inevitable political machinations, it is only answers to the aforementioned query, 'why?' - that are conspicuous in their absence.
That said, speculation is invited and welcomed. But please remember: This is NOT a debate about Passover or the Sabbath. Rather, it is an invitation to question what is known about Messiah Yeshua's devoted talmid John, and his serving as High Priest in the Temple Service. These are the questions that have gone begging. The rest of the information posted here becomes only context to a plethora of unrequited puzzles.
Shalom
We are all keenly aware of the arrest of Messiah and Kefa's thrice denial of Yeshua. But seldom do we note this oddity concerning Yochanon (or John, the 'second talmid' in this account). These verses begin with the arrest of Messiah:
(note: scripture quotes are from the CJB)
The above verses set the stage for the players in this drama, delineating the roles of each and the over-arching context of the arrest. We should also note that His arrest was under the command of a Roman Captain and his soldiers. Roman participation would prove a necessity should this 'crime' become a capital offence, as the Romans alone could sanction an execution. And so it becomes a fact that Judean authorities, by calling for Roman involvement, betrayed their intentions from the beginning.Joh 18:12 So the detachment of Roman soldiers and their captain, together with the Temple Guard of the Judeans, arrested Yeshua, tied him up,
Joh 18:13 and took him first to `Anan, the father-in-law of Kayafa, who was cohen gadol that fateful year.
Joh 18:14 (It was Kayafa who had advised the Judeans that it would be good for one man to die on behalf of the people.)
Also worthy of the gentle readers attention, is that this 'trial' was conducted at night and outside the auspices of the Sanhedrin, therefore contravened the intimations and mandates of Torah; the law of Judea. Taken in total, these facts suggest that any suspicion that the verdict was a foregone conclusion was more than mere supposition. Yeshua Ha Mashiach was to be assassinated, both in character and in fact.
There is much more to this story than the forgiveness of Kefa for his denial of Yeshua or the clearly political nature of the arrest and the extremely questionable circumstances surrounding His subsequent murder. There is no shortage of expositions to this end. So, I would first direct your careful attention to the deference shown to the 'other talmid' - as John was fond of describing himself.
It seems that the 'other talmid', for reasons unknown, was not only known to the High Priest, but had favor within the household of 'Anan (a former high priest), father in law to Kayafa (the high priest at that time). Could it be that he was related to the Hasmonean pretenders to the office of cohen hagadol (the High Priest)? How else might he be allowed to witness and live to testify to this illegal trial and its unholy proponents? Is this a case of high-held hopes of John's progenitors and close relations, perhaps even a plot to bring him back into the Hasmonean fold?Joh 18:15 Shim`on Kefa and another talmid followed Yeshua. The second talmid was known to the cohen hagadol, and he went with Yeshua into the courtyard of the cohen hagadol;
Joh 18:16 but Kefa stood outside by the gate. So the other talmid, the one known to the cohen hagadol, went back out and spoke to the woman on duty at the gate, then brought Kefa inside.
In light of the discovery of the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' in 1948, which were first attributed to 'celibate monks' and only recently linked to the Zadokim (the sons of Zadok and the scripturally designated High Priesthood determined by King David). It is clear from multiple sources that the Hasmoneans were illegally holding the coveted office of High Priest in the time of Yeshua's visitation. What is not clear to me is the status of the lesser Cohens. Were they too Hasmonean or actual Aaronic Cohens according to Torah?
As background, it should be noted that the 'other talmid' (known as John to most Christians), was estimated to be in his late teens by a majority of scholars, although certainty is elusive. But it would seem he had not the respect one might impart to another based on age and accomplishment, as he had yet to achieve either. No matter his vocation or avocations, he would be reckoned as an apprentice or student until around the age of 30 within that culture.
So how did John gain the favor shown? I suspect it was familial in nature, as you will read later. There is little doubt he was admitted into the courtyard without question, so it seems he was recognized by the keeper of the gate. The same might be said of his entry into the household of the former high priest, as this was clearly a contrived event, conducted well away from the prying eyes of the populous and the cleansing influence of sunlight.
On the topic of the 'other talmid', I found the following to be an amazing account. Astonishing really. So I bolded and underlined the germane portions; those that gives rise to a wholly new set of revelations and speculations.
Although the debate concerning the changing of the weekly sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week is commonly known throughout Christendom, the presumption that the weekly sabbath should also be a weekly celebration of 'Easter' is less known or understood outside of the upper echelon of Roman Catholicism and academia. But this is simply an aside considering the greater question of John's familial status.Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 8
2nd & 3rd Centuries - Polycrates Ephesus Bishop
Remains of the Second and Third Centuries
Polycrates,1 Bishop of Ephesus.
[a.d. 130-196.] This author2 comes in as an appendix to the stories of Polycarp and Irenæus and good Anicetus, and his writings also bear upon the contrast presented by the less creditable history of Victor. If, as I suppose, the appearance of our Lord to St. John on “the Lord’s day” was on the Paschal Sunday, it may at first seem surprising that this Apostle can be claimed by Polycrates in behalf of the Eastern custom to keep Easter, with the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the moon. But to the Jews the Apostles became “as Jews” in all things tolerable, so long as the Temple stood, and while the bishops of Jerusalem were labouring to identify the Paschal Lamb with their Passover. The long survival of St. John among Jewish Christians led them to prolong this usage, no doubt, as sanctioned by his example. He foreknew it would quietly pass away.
The wise and truly Christian spirit of Irenæus prepared the way for the ultimate unanimity of the Church in a matter which lies at the base of “the Christian Sabbath,” and of our own observance of the first day of the week as a weekly Easter. Those who in our own times have revived the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, show us how much may be said on their side,3 and elucidate the tenacity of the Easterns in resisting the abolition of the Mosaic ordinance as to the Paschal, although they agreed to keep it “not with the old leaven.”
Our author belonged to a family in which he was the eighth Christian bishop; and he presided over the church of Ephesus, in which the traditions of St. John were yet fresh in men’s minds at the date of his birth. He had doubtless known Polycarp, and Irenæus also. He seems to have presided over a synod of Asiatic bishops (a.d. 196) which came together to consider this matter of the Paschal feast. It is surely noteworthy that nobody doubted that it was kept by a Christian and Apostolic ordinance. So St. Paul argues from its Christian observance, in his rebuke of the Corinthians.4 They were keeping it “unleavened” ceremonially, and he urges a spiritual unleavening as more important. The Christian hallowing of Pentecost connects with the Paschal argument. (Act_2:1, Act_10:16; 1Co_16:8) The Christian Sabbath hinges on these points.
From His Epistle to Victor and the Roman Church Concerning the Day of Keeping the Passover.
5 As for us, then, we scrupulously observe the exact day,6 neither adding nor taking away. For in Asia great luminaries7 have gone to their rest, who shall rise again in the day of the coming of the Lord, when He cometh with glory from heaven and shall raise again all the saints. I speak of Philip, one of the twelve apostles,8 who is laid to rest at Hierapolis; and his two daughters, who arrived at old age unmarried;9 his other daughter also, who passed her life10 under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and reposes at Ephesus; John, moreover, who reclined on the Lord’s bosom, and who became a priest wearing the mitre,11 and a witness and a teacher - he rests at Ephesus.
Then there is Polycarp, both bishop and martyr at Smyrna; and Thraseas from Eumenia, both bishop and martyr, who rests at Smyrna. Why should I speak of Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who rests at Laodicea? of the blessed Papirius, moreover? and of Melito the eunuch,12 who performed all his actions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and lies at Sardis, awaiting the visitation13 from heaven, when he shall rise again from the dead? These all kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month, in accordance with the Gospel, without ever deviating from it, but keeping to the rule of faith.
Moreover I also, Polycrates, who am the least of you all, in accordance with the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have succeeded - seven of my relatives were bishops, and I am the eighth, and my relatives always observed the day when the people put away14 the leaven - I myself, brethren, I say, who am sixty-five years old in the Lord, and have fallen in with the brethren in all parts of the world, and have read through all Holy Scripture, am not frightened at the things which are said to terrify us. For those who are greater than I have said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Act_5:29) ...
I might also have made mention of the bishops associated with me, whom it was your own desire to have called together by me, and I called them together: whose names, if I were to write them down, would amount to a great number. These bishops, on coming to see me, unworthy as I am,15 signified their united approval of the letter, knowing that I wore these grey hairs not in vain, but have always regulated my conduct in obedience to the Lord Jesus.
For me, the standout revelation is this: After the crucifixion of Yeshua 'John...who reclined on the Lord’s bosom...became a priest wearing the mitre'!
Wait, what? Wow!
We should note: The only cohen (priest) that wears the 'miter' (also known as that sacerdotal plate) was the High Priest. This is the same person that is the 'other talmid' that was present the night of Messiah's arrest and trial, with Peter, in the home of the Hasmonean High Priest. So this begs the question, why would John serve as High Priest after knowing the truth imparted by Messiah Yeshua?
The Ark of the Covenant had not been seen since the Babylonian captivity. The 'Presence' had departed the Temple even before then. Yeshua had revealed His true nature to His disciples. So the question remains with John - why?
Due to John's age and the fact that the Temple only stood for another forty years, had this occurred as recorded, I would presume that this event must have transpired at least fifteen years after the Crucifixion, at a minimum. But the question remains; Did he undertake such action without his Master's approval and consent? Without it, that choice would difficult for me to fathom. On the other hand, Yeshua knew John and everything about him. So this may have been Messiah Yeshua's doing. But again, why? And to what end?
While there is room galore to speculate, evidence generally supports a familial relationship to the Hasmoneans and a candidacy for that high office. But again and again, why and to what end?
With what is now known of the Hasmoneans, the Zadokites, the Pharisees, the Zealots and the many other divisions among the population and with the turmoil intrinsic to the inevitable political machinations, it is only answers to the aforementioned query, 'why?' - that are conspicuous in their absence.
That said, speculation is invited and welcomed. But please remember: This is NOT a debate about Passover or the Sabbath. Rather, it is an invitation to question what is known about Messiah Yeshua's devoted talmid John, and his serving as High Priest in the Temple Service. These are the questions that have gone begging. The rest of the information posted here becomes only context to a plethora of unrequited puzzles.
Shalom
