Judas the Danite

[prophecynut]

We know from Gen 3:14-15 God put enmity between the offspring of the serpent and the offspring of Eve. Eventually her seed would crush the serpent's head in Christ's victory over Satan.

Satan's seed began with Cain (1 John 3:12) and after the flood continued in Esau and his decendents. Caiaphas, the chief priests and temple guards were Edomites, they were the seed of the serpent who struck Christ's heel.

The tribe of Dan was called to provide justice for his people, but later they became trecherous and betrayed the tribe of Judah. Dan's betrayal was likened to a serpent waiting along a path to throw down the rider by striking the horses heels (Gen. 49:16-17).

For a sum of thirty silver pieces, Judas collaborated with the chief priests to have Jesus arrested. His betrayal became the fulfillment of the serpent striking the horses heels. As the rider fell from his position so did Jesus fall from Rabbi to a criminal. Judas handed Jesus over to the Edomites who crucified him as protrayed in the serpent striking his heel.

 

[Link]

Do you have any historical evidence for Caiaphas and the temple guards being Edomites? I know of evidence for Herod being a mix of Greek and Edomite, converted to Judaism, but not Caiaphas.

The scripture calls an influential party in Jesus' day 'Saducees' indicating that they were indeed Zadokites, and therefore descendants of Aaron through Zadok. Why would Caiaphas not be from this group?

Where is your evidence that Judas was a Danite? Is Iscariot in Danite territory? If it is, would that prove he was a Danite, since Dan would have been among the tribes carried into captivity. There were Levites and Benjamites among those who returned, but where it the Danite lineage in post-captivity literature?

If I recall correctly, Judah was the one who suggested Joseph be sold for silver to the Egyptians. His namesake Judas later betrayed Christ for money.

I wonder if the verse, he that has broken bread with me has lifted up his heal against me, originally was written about Ahithophel in David's day. It is interested that Ahithophel betrayed David and hung himself when others would not follow his advice. Judas betrayed Christ after Christ rejected his counsel about Mary's ointment, and then went and hung himself.

 

[BobRyan]

Caiphas was high priest - of the tribe of Levi.

Edomites are not found within Israel's 12 tribes.

 

[prophecynut]

Good questions by Link, had to search my books to come with an answer.

Caiaphas was son-in-law of Annas (John 18:13) and probably not from the linage of Seth which Annas was. Probably Annas and Caiaphas served as priests at the same time (Lk. 3:2). Annas was appointed to the high-priesthood by Quirinius in 7 AD and disposed of by Valerius Gratus, AD 15. Even though Rome had replaced Annas, the Jews continued to recognize his authority (Jn 18:13; Acts 4:6). It was Annas who sent Jesus to Caiaphas (Jn 18:24; Mt. 26:57), who then handed Jesus over to Pilate to be flogged, who then handed Jesus back over to Caiaphas to be crucified (Mt. 27:18, 26). Although Annas was involved initially, he was not involved in the crucifixion. On the other hand Caiaphas was the controlling factor in Christ's death.

Those directly involved in Christ's crucifixion were called "dogs" (Psalm 22:16-20), they will not participate in the Millennium and their names "will be blotted out of the book of life" (69:24-28), exactly what will happen to the Edomites. They will no longer exist as a people.

Zadokites held the priesthood in Jerusalem till the Exile and haven't been mentioned in the Bible since then. They will serve priestly duties during the Millennium (Eze.40:46; 43:19; 44:15).

I gave you the only evidence I've found in the Bible that identifies Judas as a Danite, the NT does not give Judas's origin. If you find out something definite, let me know.

 

[Nevertheless]

It was Annas who sent Jesus to Caiaphas (Jn 18:24; Mt. 26:57), who then handed Jesus over to Pilate to be flogged, who then handed Jesus back over to Caiaphas to be crucified (Mt. 27:18, 26). Although Annas was involved initially, he was not involved in the crucifixion. On the other hand Caiaphas was the controlling factor in Christ's death.

Caiaphas had no authority to crucify anyone. Pilate handed Jesus over to his own soldiers. It was they who crucified him. The verses you referenced in Matthew don't mention Caiaphas at all, and if you read just a little farther you find: "27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor’s headquarters, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. 28 And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, 29 and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” 30 And they spit on him and took the reed and struck him on the head. 31 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him and led him away to crucify him."

 

[yeshua4me2]

Judas iscariot, i had heard the the scariots, were and egyptian based jewish "terrorist" movement to overthrow rome at any cost, and Judas actually believed Jesus was the messiah, but he broke the 2nd commandment and "made with his mind" a Jesus that was not real, his Jesus was a conquering millitary leader, who wanted to destroy rome. So (this is speculation though) Judas just wanted to jump start the revolution, thinking that Jesus would have to begin his millitary campain, if he was arrested.


just a couple of pennies worth, if i remember right i heard this from Erwin Lutzer, not positive though.

thankyou and God Bless

 

[prophecynut]

Nevertheless

The chief priests had the authority to have Jesus crucified, they also gave Saul authority to persecute the Church (Acts 26:10-11). The chief priests were subservient to Caiaphas the high priest.

The chief priests and the elders and Caiaphas conspired to arrest Jesus (Mt. 26:3-5). Judas, for thirty silver coins, handed Jesus over to the chief priests and temple guards on the Mount of Olives (v.16). They brought Jesus to Roman headquarters and handed Jesus over to Pilate for trial (Jn 7:32; Mt 27:18).

The priests remained outside the Praetorium during the interrogation and scourging by Roman soldiers and temple guards. The priests would not of entered the Gentile building where "leaven might be used on this day of preparation for Passover. Such conduct would not only render them ceremonially unclean and thereby debar them from partaking of the afternoon feast of thanksgiving but would also necessitate their subjection to purification ceremonies after sundown."

After the scourging and mocking by a "company of soldiers" (Mt 27:27-31), Jesus was taken outside by the soldiers and guards and handed over to the chief priests (v. 26). Pilate told them to take Jesus and crucify him because he found no basis for a charge against him (Jn 19:6). Pilate, by surrendering Jesus to the will of the chief priests shifted responsibility for his death over to them (Mt 27:24-26; Mk 15:15; Lk 23:25).

Pilate declared himself innocent of Jesus' blood, he certainly would not of ordered his own soldiers to crucify Jesus.

The chief priests and temple guards "brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha" where a "centurion" and Roman soldiers were waiting to carry out the crucifixions (Mk 15:22-28,39).

 

[Nevertheless]

After the scourging and mocking by a "company of soldiers" (Mt 27:27-31), Jesus was taken outside by the soldiers and guards and handed over to the chief priests (v. 26).

No, the soldiers did not hand Jesus over to the chief priests. Here is the passage:

24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” 25 And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” 26 Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified.

27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor’s headquarters, and they gathered the whole battalion before him.


Pilate was the one in charge. He handed Jesus over to the soldiers to be crucified. The priests are not mentioned again until Jesus is already on the cross.

Pilate told them to take Jesus and crucify him because he found no basis for a charge against him (Jn 19:6).

Yes, he told them to, but they didn't do it. Instead, they continued to argue with him.

The chief priests and temple guards "brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha" where a "centurion" and Roman soldiers were waiting to carry out the crucifixions (Mk 15:22-28,39).

Not so! Verses 22-28 only say "they" brought him, "they" offered him, "they" crucified him, etc. To find out who "they" is you must go back to verse 16, "And the soldiers led him away..." Every use of "they" following vs 16 refers to the soldiers. 17 And they clothed... 18 And they began... 19 And they were striking... 20 And when they had mocked him... they led him... 21 And they compelled... 22 And they brought him... 23 And they offered him... 24 And they crucified him... 25 ... when they crucified him. But in vs 31 the subject is no longer "they" it is "the chief priests with the scribes". And what did they do? They mocked him.


This may seem to be nit-picking to some, but if you cannot accurately restate facts that are clearly written for everyone to read, why should anyone believe you when you start to speculate?

 

[prophecynut]

Appreciate your input and your persistence. Analyzing Mt. 27:22-28 with John 19:6-16 the Jews did continued arguing with Pilate. The priests and their officials were the ones demanding his death (Jn. 19:6). Caiaphas was "guilty of a greater sin" than Pilate by handing Jesus over to him (v.11). Pilate tried to set Jesus free to no avail, he gave in and "finally Pilate handed him over to them (chief priests) to be crucified" (v.16). I see now that he was handing over to the chief priests the power and authority to crucify Jesus of which the Roman soldiers led Jesus to Golgotha and crucified him.