Caiaphas Quit?

[simchat_torah]

I read a shocking statement here in the MJ section of the forums. So much ignorance has surrounded the Jews and Judaism during the 'passion of christ' (the final hours of his life) that I felt compelled to correct something that was spoken in error. This following statement carries with it many ramifications and could be avoided if ignorance was destroyed.

Here it is:

When Caiaphas torn his priestly garment in the film, it was not in anger but in abdicating the priesthood. The priests garment was double seamed and ripping it was a show of quitting.

Before I begin, let me just reiterate that history does not support this view, that Caiaphas quit the priesthood. In fact, Caiaphas was a part of the Jewish priesthood until 36 c.e.

Just exactly what took place between Y'shua and Caiaphas that day if he did not 'quit' the priesthood?

And the high priest arose and said to Him, "Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?" 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!"
64 Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

In first century Judaism, "Mighty Power" or "the Power" were Euphemisms for the Tetragramatron (four letter name of G-d... Yud Hey Vav Hey... YHVH). Euphemisms were often used in written text replacing the Tetragramatron when otherwise spoken in dialogue.

The Tetragramatron (YHVH) was held in high regard. One was to use the name in upmost respect and with a holy utterance. According to the Mishnah, one was never to speak the name of G-d in front of the High Priest. In fact, according to the Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin 7:5, if one uttered the Tetragramatron in front of the High Priest, he was to tear his clothes and declare person as blasphemer! The offending blasphemer is to be flogged and put to death.

I think there are many fascinating conclusions we can discuss concerning these new revelations. Did Y'shua disagree with the halacha concerning speaking of the name before the Cohen HaGidol? Is this why Y'shua was sentanced to death? These, among many other conclusions, can be discussed in this thread.

However, ignorance of Judaism and the Jews must end, and end here it will.

Shalom,
yafet

 

[Trish1947]

simchat_torahI read a shocking statement here in the MJ section of the forums. So much ignorance has surrounded the Jews and Judaism during the 'passion of christ' (the final hours of his life) that I felt compelled to correct something that was spoken in error. This following statement carries with it many ramifications and could be avoided if ignorance was destroyed.

Well so much for me trying to understand what really happened that day. It goes right back to my original post, why the sweeping under the carpet, or coating of the truth? It makes no since to me. Everyone is human but to try to justify Caiaphas meaning of tearing his garment as a understanding high priest seems to me, some are in total denial. When I'm told that this is whats done normally as a sign of quitting. How am I supposed to know? I have no knowledge of Jewish customs.

 

[simchat_torah]

When I'm told that this is whats done normally as a sign of quitting.

This is stated by people who don't know Judaism, Jewish law, or Jewish tradition. I've seen a number of christians make this claim, and it simply isn't true. It's a fanciful world to live in, but it's purely imagination. History goes on to tell us that Caiaphas continued in his priestly role until 36 ce.

 

[Trish1947]

[/color][/font]

This is stated by people who don't know Judaism, Jewish law, or Jewish tradition. I've seen a number of christians make this claim, and it simply isn't true. It's a fanciful world to live in, but it's purely imagination. History goes on to tell us that Caiaphas continued in his priestly role until 36 ce.

Thank you, finally some reason.

 

[Rafael]

[/color][/font]

This is stated by people who don't know Judaism, Jewish law, or Jewish tradition. I've seen a number of christians make this claim, and it simply isn't true. It's a fanciful world to live in, but it's purely imagination. History goes on to tell us that Caiaphas continued in his priestly role until 36 ce.

Could it be that Caiaphas tearing of the priestly garment was symbolic and spiritual in meaning, for Caiaphas knew who Jesus was, that He was to die, and would be leaving the physical world soon. Whether Caiaphas stayed on as high priest or not doesn't change that fact that God has pointed these things out to us by having them recorded and preserved for us in scripture by the Holy Spirit of truth to consider today. Why does it record that Caiaphas knew who Jesus was, told the others, and then planned His death or why would the scriptures make sure to point out that the garment Jesus wore was seamless, part of four pieces of clothing, and not ripped or torn by soldiers if not significant? I would really like to know more about this rather than just being laughed or scoffed at as imaginative. Why would I imagine anything bad just for looking at and asking about scripture? The more I study the Word of God, the more I see that every Word is deep and rich in meaning and not insignificant.

John 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death

John 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

 

[Higher Truth]

Simchat stated:

The Tetragramatron (YHVH) was held in high regard. One was to use the name in upmost respect and with a holy utterance. According to the Mishnah, one was never to speak the name of G-d in front of the High Priest. In fact, according to the Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin 7:5, if one uttered the Tetragramatron in front of the High Priest, he was to tear his clothes and declare person as blasphemer! The offending blasphemer is to be flogged and put to death.

I think there are many fascinating conclusions we can discuss concerning these new revelations. Did Y'shua disagree with the halacha concerning speaking of the name before the Cohen HaGidol? Is this why Y'shua was sentanced to death? These, among many other conclusions, can be discussed in this thread.

HT:

The above statement is interesting. The term yamiyn [right hand] is used in conjuction with the Name YHVH three times in the Hebrew Scriptures [OT]


Psalms 118

15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tents of the righteous; the right hand of YHVH [yamiyn YHVH] works mightily.

16 The right hand of YHVH [yamiyn YHVH] is exalted; the right hand of YHVH [yamiyn YHVH] acts mightily.


Let's look at this now from a different perspective. Traditionally, all of the priests came through the Levitic line. Messiah came through the Tribe of Judah. Scripture tells us that He is the Great High Priest.[Cohen Ha Gadol] How did this affect Caiaphas future job description? To tear the Priestly Garments was a serious act, as they were considered Holy. What part did the hand of The Almighty play in this action?

 

[Charlesinflorida]

Yafet is correct. The exchange between The High Priest and Yeshua would have resulted in the tearing of his robe and a scourging and death. It would have been a terrible offense. We can assign all sorts of symbolism to it, and find hidden meaning. But the written record would indicate that Ciaphas was making a human decision, "Better that one man should die" than to provoke the ire of the romans because of civil unrest. The seond temple era pieshood was apostate and in spiritual decay. It seems that the Lord allowed the Hasmoneans to be pleced there in order to carry out the neccessity that Messiah would be killed by his own people and at the hand of the high priest. It was all Gods will and purpose, Yes?

CIF

 

[Higher Truth]

My next question is, if the writers of the NT took the time to take an Aramaic word like Abba, and try to accurately represent it in the Greek text, why did they not do it with YHVH? I have heard all of the Theos vs Kurios arguments, but they do not totally pan out.

 

[Henaynei]

My next question is, if the writers of the NT took the time to take an Aramaic word like Abba, and try to accurately represent it in the Greek text, why did they not do it with YHVH? I have heard all of the Theos vs Kurios arguments, but they do not totally pan out.

How about the simplist - that the tetranamagram (sp?) was and is considered very Holy and to re-write it in ANY language other than Hebrew was/is considered blasphemy. Then, as now, a representation was used, by those who hold the Name supremely sacred.

 

[Palatka44]

[/color][/font]

This is stated by people who don't know Judaism, Jewish law, or Jewish tradition. I've seen a number of christians make this claim, and it simply isn't true. It's a fanciful world to live in, but it's purely imagination. History goes on to tell us that Caiaphas continued in his priestly role until 36 ce.

Thank you for the info. I am truly enlightened.

 

[simchat_torah]

Henaynei hit the nail right on the head.

There are many common Euphemisms in the Aramaic and Greek that represent the Tetragramatron. It was forbidden to write out the name in common dialogue. Only when referencing scripture was one allowed to write out the Tetragramatron, and only then if special precautions were taken.

Shalom,
yafet

 

[ShirChadash]

[/color][/font]

This is stated by people who don't know Judaism, Jewish law, or Jewish tradition. I've seen a number of christians make this claim, and it simply isn't true. It's a fanciful world to live in, but it's purely imagination. History goes on to tell us that Caiaphas continued in his priestly role until 36 ce.

I hope this isn't too off topic... I keep thinking this ^ reminds me of how people claim that the Temple observances, and sacrificial system and all, were abandoned with Yeshua's death because He "fulfilled = abolished" the "Law" (instead of understanding that the meaning of "fulfill" = to correctly interpret)... yet the apostles and believers continued Temple observances and sacrifices for some 40 years after Yeshua's death, no?

 

[Henaynei]

I hope this isn't too off topic... I keep thinking this ^ reminds me of how people claim that the Temple observances, and sacrificial system and all, were abandoned with Yeshua's death because He "fulfilled = abolished" the "Law" (instead of understanding that the meaning of "fulfill" = to correctly interpret)... yet the apostles and believers continued Temple observances and sacrifices for some 40 years after Yeshua's death, no?

YES

 

[simchat_torah]

haha... absolutley.

Did not Y'shua himself teach HOW to properly make a sacrafice? Did not Sha'ul go to the temple and make an example of himself and make a sacrafice, and even going so far as to pay for four other men's sacrafices?

oy.

 

[Charlesinflorida]

The Long held traditions of the Church will not yield even in the face of overwhelming scripture.

 

[simchat_torah]

how true, how true.

 

[Palatka44]

haha... absolutley.

Did not Y'shua himself teach HOW to properly make a sacrafice? Did not Sha'ul go to the temple and make an example of himself and make a sacrafice, and even going so far as to pay for four other men's sacrafices?

oy.

I am sorry, my brothers in Christ, but I must beg to differ. There is no record of the Apostles making sacrifice in the temple after the death and ressurection of our Lord and Savior. And please reread the passage in the Acts of the Apostiles about Paul's (Sha'ul) vow before he goes in to do sacrifice.
Acts 21:15-30

15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem.
16 There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.
17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)
30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.
He was taken out of the temple before sacrifice could be made. Thus in a violent way the Holy Spirit kept Paul from completing this vow.
The Holy Spirit did not intervene until Paul was about to disavow his commentment to Christ on the road to Damascus.
Apparently the Holy Spirit has no objections to ordinances and traditions but will hault any attempt of the believer to sacrifice an animal again.
Please remember that this is what Jesus accomplished and finished.

 

[simchat_torah]

There are two forms of interpretting scripture. The first is called exogesis, which is letting the verses speak for themselves. In otherwords, plainly reading the text and not adding to it. Isogesis is implying a predetermined idea upon the text. In otherwords, placing upon the text something which is not there because one has already determined what they think it means, aside from its literal and/or plain meaning.

Thus in a violent way the Holy Spirit kept Paul from completing this vow.

This is isogesis.

In no way does the verse speak of the Holy Spirit doing any such thing. One must be predisposed towards the temple's sacrafices to come to this conclusion regarding the text in question (acts 21). One must imply their own ideas on top of the text and ignore the literal and plain meaning in order to state such.

This is exactly what Charles was referring to when he stated:

The Long held traditions of the Church will not yield even in the face of overwhelming scripture.

Shalom,
yafet

 

[simchat_torah]

More isogesis:

Apparently the Holy Spirit has no objections to ordinances and traditions but will hault any attempt of the believer to sacrifice an animal again.

Aslo, one might do well to take note of Zemirah's comments previously:

yet the apostles and believers continued Temple observances and sacrifices for some 40 years after Yeshua's death, no?

It seems history has a different story to tell.

Shalom,
yafet

 

[Palatka44]

Well did Paul accomplish the sacrifice? Was he not interrupted? Did not the passage state that the temple doors were shut?