The Sign of Lazarus (Continued: 2)

Out of my respect for the Jewish people, I will continue to view the Passover of our Jewish Messiah’s death and resurrection in the context of his own Jewish tradition; particularly the Jewish priestly tradition. Using the paper entitled To die for the People, originally published in 1996 in The Priest: A Journal of Catholic Theology, by  Reb  HaKohain, as a starting point, I will offer some thoughts which, I hope, will be more sympathetic to the Jewish people than is typically the case.

What I will suggest concerning the role of the Jewish priests in the arrest and trial of Yeshua is not exactly spelled out in the surface text of the Gospel accounts, but it is supported by the Jewish messianic tradition. I therefore ask you to seriously reconsider the commonly accepted 'facts' in the light of the following: 

1. There is an accepted rabbinic principle in the studying of biblical texts; that the plain meaning of a text represents only the surface layer of what is really  multi-layered... The content needs to be “turned and turned, for all is contained therein”. When I read the Gospels, therefore, it is not only the plain meaning of the text that I consider, but also the well-spring of Jewish tradition from which the words come. 

2. A biblical text is interpreted by the rabbis on four different levels, known by the acronym ‘Pardes’ (The Holy Orchard): Pshat - the plain/surface meaning; Remez - allusions to other scriptural images and verses, thus deepening the meaning; Drash - homiletical inferences; and Sod - the deepest level of meaning, representing divine mysteries. According to the rabbis the infinite mind of the Most High cannot possibly be encapsulated in the simple/plain meaning of scriptural texts; hence their extensive commentary tradition. The Gospels, I suggest, should be studied in much the same way; we should seek to understand their texts on different levels.  

In this post I will be focusing on that pivotal Pesach of approximately 30 AD from a very different perspective than is commonly accepted; that of the priests who relied as much on the oral as on the written Jewish tradition of the time. 

3. I am acutely aware that the Gospels were written during a time of persecution, meaning that much had to remain undisclosed/unspoken and that it was necessary to portray the Roman overlords in a favourable light. A case in point here is the description of Pilate during the trial of Yeshua as magnanimous and noble. He was, in truth, a sadist who was eventually recalled to Rome to face charges of cruelty and murder... Bearing this in mind, I believe that it is appropriate that we read Pilate’s words, at the trial, in a mocking, sarcastic tone; in keeping with his character. In that way we might come to a better understanding of the tenor of the trial; the actual atmosphere that prevailed during those hours…

4. I also bear in mind that the Gospel accounts were first memorised in Hebrew/Aramaic, in the manner of the Semitic oral tradition, by Jewish followers of Yeshua. Only later were they were written down in the vernacular of Greek, in a form that was both accessible to all and acceptable to the Roman authorities... Because the substance of the Gospels was, for many years, preserved by means of the Hebrew/Aramaic oral tradition, by definition, some of the vibrancy, authenticity and meaning of the content must have been forfeited in the translating, and recording, of the Gospels into Greek. 

Nevertheless, the Gospels must still be viewed as Semitic documents and be studied as Jews have always studied their holy texts... That is, there must be an awareness of allusions, associations, symbolism, underlying connections, clues, hints and inferences; because Semitic Hebrew texts, by definition, always contain more than is immediately apparent. The most precious pearls are 'hidden', concealed from plain view, but beg to be revealed through careful study... Again, “Turn it and turn it, for all is contained therein”.

I am thus aware of the need to “read between the lines” of the Gospel texts and look for telling associations and resonances with other Scriptural images and phrases, but also attempt to be aware of deeply-rooted Jewish traditions and extra-biblical contextual verities, in order to more fully understand what is being alluded to, and to discover additional treasures.

5. In the ancient Jewish messianic tradition there are various renditions of a teaching concerning a suffering messiah, named Messiah ben Joseph, who is regarded as the One who will come to suffer and die in order to redeem Israel ~ in the manner of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Christians are not generally familiar with this ancient Jewish tradition that deals with two Messiahs: a suffering Messiah (“ben Joseph”) who will come first and die a sacrificial death, and then only a royal Messiah “ben David” who will come to rule and reign. Although this teaching correlates perfectly with the Christian concept of the first and second comings of the Messiah, unfortunately in Christendom the two advents tend to be conflated, which muddies the waters...

In the light of the Jewish tradition regarding Messiah ben Joseph, perhaps we need to at least consider the words ~ “Let His blood be on us and on our children”~ as a priestly prayer. These words, spoken by the one hundred or so priests who, I believe, were the ones who gathered on the Pavement/Gabbatta during the trial of Yeshua, could indicate their recognition of Yeshua as the ultimate Passover Lamb; the One who had come for the redemption of the children of Israel. 

I am suggesting that these words ~“Let His blood be on us and on our children” ~ which are typically rendered/taught in a most defamatory manner, may be viewed very differently; as a reflection of the priestly hope that Yeshua was, indeed, the long-awaited suffering Messiah ben Joseph, as proven by the resurrection of Lazarus after four days in the tomb... The priests of that time would also have been aware that the name 'Yeshua' was an abbreviation of ‘Yehoshua’, meaning ‘God is our Salvation’…  

6. The Jewish messianic tradition further states that Messiah ben Joseph will be a priestly Galilean, from the traditional northern territory of the patriarch Joseph, who will die in Jerusalem, and that no unclean thing will be permitted to touch His body for forty days -- until Elijah and Messiah ben David come and resurrect Him. Following this resurrection, the enemies of the Jews, it is said, will be overthrown/defeated. 

In these accounts, the term ‘Edom’, referring to the enemy of the Jews, is repeatedly used and is said to represent Rome; whereas the name Armilus in these ‘midrashim’ represents Satan. The teachings relate thus to both a temporal and a spiritual battle, and this is certainly true of the Passover of Yeshua’s death. There was both a strong political motive and a compelling spiritual motive for Yeshua's demise. It was, indeed, "expedient that one man die on behalf of the nation"… from both the Roman (political) and Jewish (religious) points of view.

The priests, well aware of the Messiah ben Joseph tradition, would not have anticipated the unfolding of the Messianic drama in any other way...  One can thus understand their need to tightly ‘secure the tomb’ for the forty day waiting period, which they believed would be necessary before the coming of Messiah ben David, who would finally free the nation both from the Romans and the Adversary (Edom and Armilus).

When the tomb was found empty on the third day, and Messiah ben David did not appear forty days after the death of Yeshua, it was assumed by many that Yeshua had been a false Messiah… Events had not unfolded according to the messianic tradition. Such people did not, could not, understand that the Messianic message would first have to go out to the Gentiles, and that the gathering of God’s people from among the nations would take millennia… 

Thus, ultimately, the acceptance of Yeshua as Messiah, by the Jews, was mixed. Clearly many accepted Him on the basis of reports of His resurrection and, presumably, because they had experienced His transformative power in their own lives. In the Acts of the Apostles a clear reference is made to the ‘thousands/myriads’ of ‘Torah observant Jews’ who became followers of Yeshua; and this included members of the religious leadership. Others would have rejected Yeshua as Messiah based on events, apparently, not correlating with their messianic hopes; his death not bringing about the type of victory that they had expected or longed for…

7. The essence of the tradition concerning Messiah ben Joseph is contained in a powerful midrashic image of a suffering messiah who was stretched out and tortured on an iron bar ~ as one destined to die, to redeem His people. This is strongly reminiscent of Yeshua’s torturous death on the cross... One wonders, therefore, if some of the priests were reminded of such verses/images in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 which reflected the type of death Messiah would die at the hands of the Romans ~ crucifixion ~ and thus pronounced “Let Him be crucified”, in fulfilment of such concepts?

What, then did all, or many, of the learned priests and Pharisees ‘see’ and understand, during that Pesach weekend, in the light of messianic expectations? I propose the following. What they most powerfully saw was the messianic prophetic sign of the miraculous resurrection of Lazarus. (In the Jewish tradition, it is Messiah who brings about the resurrection of the dead!) They also recognised the figure of a suffering messiah from the North, a Messiah ben Joseph figure and saw that He conformed in appearance to the suffering servant image in Isaiah 53; and even realised, perhaps, that the method of his execution, foretold in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, coincided with the Roman practice of crucifixion. (During the time of the Roman occupation of Palestine, the Jewish Sanhedrin did not have the authority to put a man to death. This authority was entirely in the hands of the Roman authorities.)

Our knowledge of that time, place, Temple duties/protocol and Jewish messianic expectations assuredly cannot be compared to that of the first century scholarly priests and Pharisees’ knowledge of such things... It is thus reasonable to at least consider that the alternative understanding proposed here, and in the previous Lazarus post, may reflect something of what actually what took place on that Passover of our Messiah’s death...

According to Jewish tradition one is encouraged to draw near to HaShem through the study of Scriptures, both oral and written, and to delight in the new insights that He brings. It is thus my prayer that my thoughts regarding these matters will ring true in some hearts; that they will, perhaps, constitute a way of seeing that both Jews and Gentiles can graciously, together, accept?

Recommended reading:

1. The Religious Thought of the Chassidim; Paul Philip Levertoff; Vine of David MS USA; 2017 ISBN: 978-1-941534-40-3

2. The Messiah Texts; Raphael Patai; Avon Books; New York; 1979. ISBN: 0-380-46482-9
3. To die for the People, originally published in The Priest: A Journal of Catholic Theology; Reb HaKohain; 1996.