Who anointed the high priests?

There is not historical evidence or hint that at Jesus time the high priest was anointed. He was just appointed among the sacerdotal families.
On the contrary, at that time Jews believed that the contact with oil created impurity.

a_ntv said:

There is not historical evidence or hint that at Jesus time the high priest was anointed. He was just appointed among the sacerdotal families.
On the contrary, at that time Jews believed that the contact with oil created impurity.

Click to expand...

The Law and the prophets were "until John"

Jesus didn't need to be anointed by the false high priest, which was of a politically compromised order, and he should have stepped down and let John the Baptist take over the priest hood. -yeah, sounds crazy i know.

Instead they killed john the baptist, and the false high priest condemned himself to hell when he tore his robe.

If you believe the office of the high priest is a "legal office" before God, (even though a false priest is in the office) (and even though the office was null and void after John the baptist showed up) then when the high priest tore his robes, he effectively allowed Jesus to take his place as the high priest by default because there was no longer anyone in the office of high priest.

perhaps more interestingly, Jesus did, or had someone do to him, everything required of a high priest before he makes his sacrifice.

it sounds weird but the supporting details for all this are in the torah. what we're left with is trying to figure out exactly what "the law and the prophets were until John" means, and i explained what i think it means above.

in my opinion, you can find the answers in Hebrews where it explains how Jesus is now the mediator of a better covenant and the old law and the prophets and the high priests are null and void. but when exactly did that happen?
who announced the removal of the law and the prophets? in my opinion Jesus gave us enough information to figure this out.

the supporting evidence for the high priest being a legally binding matter, is Jesus statement to his disciples:
the scribes and the pharisees sit on Moses' seat. therefore you must be careful to do all that they command you to, but do not do what they do for they are hypocrites. --the point is they still had spiritually and legally binding authority from Moses, that Jesus has now, but did not, at the time He made that statement.

johansen said:

...If you believe the office of the high priest is a "legal office" before God, (even though a false priest is in the office) (and even though the office was null and void after John the baptist showed up) then when the high priest tore his robes, he effectively allowed Jesus to take his place as the high priest by default because there was no longer anyone in the office of high priest....

Click to expand...

Well, at Jesus' time there were many Jews, for example the people of Qumran, that though that the current high priest was not a true high priest because not directly a descendent of Zadok.
[to be a high priest was not a issue of receiving an anointment, but to descend directly from who first had that anointment]

And probably when Jesus prophesized the destruction of the Temple, it was because also Jesus considered the current Temple as "illegal" because of the above reason.

a_ntv said:

Well, at Jesus' time there were many Jews, for example the people of Qumran, that though that the current high priest was not a true high priest because not directly a descendent of Zadok.
[to be a high priest was not a issue of receiving an anointment, but to descend directly from who first had that anointment]

And probably when Jesus prophesized the destruction of the Temple, it was because also Jesus considered the current Temple as "illegal" because of the above reason.

Click to expand...

there was a lot going on.

they didn't ask God who the high priest was supposed to be, and i think everyone can agree on that.

johansen said:

they didn't ask God who the high priest was supposed to be, and i think everyone can agree on that.

Click to expand...

Jews at Jesus time were fully aware of the problem of the High Priest.

The point was that the High Priest should have been not only the religious leader but also the political leader.
When the Seleucid dynasty took the power, they substituted the true High Priest descendent of Zadok with a high priest appointed by them.
The kings of the following Hasmonean dynasty used to appoint themselves as High Priest "for ever" (see Simon the Wise and his son John Hyrcanus )
Herodes was technically not a Jew, so he could not at all be himself a High Priest, and he used to appoint, through the Sanhedrin, a puppet of him as High Priest.

Many Jews believed in Christ as true High Priest, because it was clear that the current High Priest was not a true High Priest, and that the line of Zadoc high priests was broken forever