The Degradation of the Office of High Priest
While the Maccabean leaders and those that followed them had the spirit of Jonathan (son of Saul), they were successful. Jonathan had said, “… it may be that the Lord will work for us. For nothing restrains the Lord from saving by many or by few.” (1 Samuel 14:6) When they expressed similar faith and trusted the Lord for strength and wisdom they were victorious, but somehow once they had success they felt they had to maintain security by other means. They made alliances with some of the stronger nations around them to maintain power. This resulted in their hold on the land being weakened and ultimately broken.
Their change in policy was also reflected in the way the office of High Priest was treated. Under the Mosaic covenant it was designed to be hereditary and only change on the decease of the holder, but because of its inherent power, both politically and culturally, it was coveted by those with ambitions to rule. It was forcibly taken by some who had no right to hold it. Different ones obtained it be various means, sometimes by offering money, sometimes through military power, sometimes by political astuteness. From 163 BC to 159 BC Alcimus was High Priest. In May 160 BC he gave great offence to those who adhered to the Torah. He threw down the walls of the inner court of the Temple and in so doing was said to have destroyed the works of the prophets. His death soon after was considered a judgement of God. A mixture of diplomacy and military acumen was needed to obtain and then retain power in the region. Some accomplished it by obtaining the post of ruler/prince/king as well as the office of High Priest. For more than one hundred years one family dominated the political and religious landscape – it was the family that led the rebellion against Syria, the Maccabees. Jonathan, brother of Judas, was invested as High Priest in 153 BC. Simon, his brother, subsequently became High Priest in 141 BC. This was the founding of the Hasmonean High Priesthood. He then was succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus I, who was himself succeeded by his son, Aristobulus I. Aristobulus only held the office of High Priest for a short time (105 BC – 104 BC)! Alexander Jannaeus, his brother, then held the post. Alexander was not only High Priest but also king and held this position from 104 BC to 78 BC. His widow Salome became Queen on his decease, before his son Aristobulus II became ruler and his brother Hyrcanus II, High Priest. He held office until 40 BC. Antigonus, son of Aristobulos II, was High Priest from 40 BC to 37 BC and was succeeded by Aristobulus III (36 BC) He was the last of the Hasmoneans, paternal grandson of Aristobulus II and brother of Herod's wife Mariamne (second wife of Herod). There were 14 further High Priests prior to the accession of Caiaphas, the High Priest in office at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus. This list is offered to demonstrate that the requirements of the Law, (that the High Priest was to be of the family of Aaron and hold the office for life), was no longer taken seriously.
The power of Rome in the region waxed and waned - Pompey entered Jerusalem in 63 BC –but then the Roman civil wars brought a temporary respite to Hebrew nation. However, in 37 BC Israel became a client state of Rome when Herod the Great, who had allied himself to the Roman cause, was installed as king. Herod was an Idumean, that is, from the region of Edom. This region had been forced to embrace the Jewish religion by John Hyrcanus in 123 BC. This is why Herod felt he could be considered Jewish. His rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple was designed to place him in the same bracket as Solomon who built the first Temple.
This history delivers much information to illuminate any consideration of the life and times of Jesus, delivering as it does a catalogue of the many varied influences that impacted on His ministry.
(1) That Rome was the supreme power at the time of His birth, life and death caused Him to be born in Bethlehem and die by crucifixion.
(2) That Rome installed Herod, an ambitious, vicious, blood thirsty, power seeking individual as king, produced the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem, the settling of the family in Nazareth and the beheading of John the Baptist.
(3) It was the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the reaction of the ‘pious’ that also gave shape to the political landscape at the time of Christ, for there are many that would suggest that the Chasidim (the ‘pious’), who led the revolt against Syria, morphed into the Pharisees who took upon themselves the responsibility of defending rigorously the traditions of the nation.
(4) The buying (or acquiring by force) the position of High Priest explains why the office had been so greatly corrupted and in such disrepute, when it was held by the ‘Sons of Annas’, a group which includes Caiaphas who presided over the trial and condemnation of Christ.
More Next Time
No comments:
Post a Comment