"Go to now, ye rich men..." Josephus interprets James 5:1-6

Post Reply
3Resurrections
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

"Go to now, ye rich men..." Josephus interprets James 5:1-6

Post by 3Resurrections » Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:47 pm

I pulled up Steve's lecture on this section and listened to it. For the most part, he correctly placed the context of James 5 in the pre-AD 70 state of affairs for James' readers. However, there are a few more details needed to fill in the particular events that James wrote about in this passage condemning the actions of these "rich men" who were oppressing and "killing the just". Josephus gives us those details. So precisely, in fact, that it's almost as if James was doing a commentary on Josephus' writings, instead of the other way around.

James, the brother of the Lord, was one of the "pillars" of the church in Jerusalem, so it's safe to say that this diatribe against the "rich men" was speaking of something occurring in Jerusalem's vicinity where James was witnessing these things happen. These oppressive "rich men" in James 5 were HIGH PRIESTS, just as they were presented in Christ's Luke 16 parable of the "rich man" (Caiaphas) with his "5 brothers" (the 5 high priest sons of Annas) of his "Father's house" (the Jerusalem temple where Annas had been a high priest) who "fared sumptuously every day" (on temple sacrifices), and "wore purple and fine linen" (the priestly vestments). After his death, the "rich man" (high priest Caiaphas) in that parable ended up in Jerusalem's AD 70 Lake of Fire, being "tormented in this flame". This was exactly like the "rich men" in James 5 who would end up "weeping and howling" over the torments that would be inflicted on them in Jerusalem by the Zealots and their armies stealing and confiscating all the "heaped treasure" those high priests had laid up for themselves "in the last days" of the Judaic age. Eventually, these "rich men" became a target themselves for assassination by the Zealot forces.

The particular sin these "rich men" / high priests were guilty of in James 5:4 was to commit "fraud" by holding back the "hire of the laborers" who were reaping the fields. As a result of this agricultural "fraud", the "rich men" / high priests had "killed the just". This is exactly the order of events as described by Josephus in Ant. 20.9.2 as follows:

"Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the sicarii; but as for the high priest Ananias, (Ananias ben Nebedeus, whose term as high priest ran from about AD 47-59), "he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for HE WAS A GREAT HOARDER UP OF MONEY; he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the bolder of the people, and WENT TO THE THRASHING FLOORS, AND TOOK AWAY THE TITHES THAT BELONGED TO THE PRIESTS BY VIOLENCE, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. SO THE OTHER PRIESTS ACTED IN THE LIKE MANNER, as did those his servants" (Ananias' servants), "WITHOUT ANY ONE BEING ABLE TO PROHIBIT THEM; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported by those tithes, DIED FOR WANT OF FOOD."

James as a leader in the Jerusalem church would have been an eye-witness of this fraud being committed by the high priests Ananias and others like him stealing the tithe portion of harvested grain from the priests, who depended on those tithes of grain for their very survival. Ananias' example led other high priests as well as members of the royal family to do the same. Ant. 20:9.4 says that a certain Costobarus and Saulus of the royal family "used violence with the people and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time" (in the "last days" according to James 5:3), "it principally came to pass, that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us." We know that these events had to occur before "James the Just" was executed by the high priest Ananus son of Annas (during his 3-month term as high priest in AD 62). This dates the book of James to that approximate era leading up to James' AD 62 martyrdom, when Ananias was fraudulently withholding the tithe of harvested grain from the priests who perished of starvation.

Actually, it appears that James, called "The Just" may have inadvertently prophesied his own martyrdom in James 5:6 at the hands of these "rich men" / high priests. James the Just also "did not resist" his murderers when they threw him off the parapet of the temple, according to Eusebius' account. The fall did not quite kill him, and as James prayed, "I implore you, O Lord, God and Father, forgive them: they do not know what they are doing", they stoned him and clubbed him to death at the base of the temple walls; a true fulfillment of "Ye have condemned and killed the just, and he doth not resist you."

What had angered the Jews (and the high priest Ananus) so much was James' testimony as he stood on the temple's parapet. In front of all the people assembled there, he testified, "Why do you ask me about the Son of Man? He is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Great Power, and he will come on the clouds of heaven." James knew very well that Jesus, the "judge" was truly "standing before the door", and that "the coming of the Lord has drawn near" in those last days. That was literally the second physical coming of Christ in AD 70. James was more than willing to "lose his life", because he knew he would "find it" in the AD 70 "resurrection of the just", which was a mere eight years away from then.

With Christ's second coming already accomplished back then, (at the time of the "latter rain" harvest on Pentecost day in AD 70), we are now waiting on the Lord's third coming in our future, when the Lord as the "husbandman" will return again in the 7th month for the harvest before the "early rain" - at the time the Feast of Tabernacles would ordinarily have been celebrated. James knew about these two more "comings" of Christ in advance, and wrote James 5:7-9 to reflect this truth. The Lord has "long patience" until both these harvests of the bodies of His children out of the earth have occurred. He waited over four thousand years for the "latter rain" harvest on Pentecost day in AD 70, for the Old Covenant saints to be "received unto Himself". He now waits with equally "long patience" until the last "early rain" harvest takes place to fulfill a symbolic "Feast of Tabernacles", when the bodies of the saints from the New Covenant Age will also be raised out of the earth.

I will also be waiting.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: "Go to now, ye rich men..." Josephus interprets James 5

Post by Homer » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:32 pm

3Resurrections,

You wrote:
James, the brother of the Lord, was one of the "pillars" of the church in Jerusalem, so it's safe to say that this diatribe against the "rich men" was speaking of something occurring in Jerusalem's vicinity where James was witnessing these things happen. These oppressive "rich men" in James 5 were HIGH PRIESTS, just as they were presented in Christ's Luke 16 parable of the "rich man" (Caiaphas) with his "5 brothers

I can see no hint in either passage that the subject "rich men" were high priests. Indeed scholars believe that in the story of the rich man and Lazarus Jesus had taken and changed a story, common among the Jews, about a rich publican and a poor beggar. At the time of Jesus the poor beggar would have been seen as a sinner (the cause of his condition) so Jesus' version of the story was shocking because the beggar was the one in God's favor, not the other way around.

3Resurrections
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: "Go to now, ye rich men..." Josephus interprets James 5

Post by 3Resurrections » Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:37 am

Hi Homer,

Perhaps there was a tale common among the Jews, which Christ adapted to the parable He was telling in Luke 16. But we have no other parables which specifically name an individual, do we? The fact that Christ put Lazarus' name as the "beggar" laid before the rich man's "gate" (of the temple) was meant to underscore the miracle of the real Lazarus being raised from the dead; a fact duplicated in the parable. The "beggar" not having a burial recorded in the story would be a reflection of the real Lazarus not needing a burial after he was raised from the dead in an incorruptible resurrected state.

In spite of the "beggar" Lazarus being raised to life again, (just as the real Lazarus was), the "5 brothers" and the "Father" would not believe his testimony, (just as Annas and his 5 sons who also became high priests did not believe the real Lazarus' testimony after he was raised from the dead. We know they wished to kill him after Christ raised him - not that this was possible - because the people were drawn to Christ's teaching because of this miracle - John 12:10-11).

There are far too many parallels in this parable to be merely a flipped version of a common Jewish folk tale. There is a pointed message in it for the avaricious house of Annas the high priest; a warning of perishing in Jerusalem's Lake of Fire. That "great gulf fixed" between the rich man and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom in the parable? It's meant to portray the literal Kidron Valley stretching between those captives in a besieged Jerusalem in AD 70 and the Mount of Olives where Christ would physically stand before gathering His resurrected saints from that location (Zech. 14:4-7). There would be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" for those in the city who saw Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets resurrected and gathered into the kingdom, and themselves thrust out (Luke 13:28).

Just as in the parable, the real Lazarus, too, was then gathered into the kingdom along with Abraham in AD 70. We know that the "rich man" Caiaphas had Christ's promise that he would see Christ coming in the clouds (Matt. 26:64). Caiaphas died before AD 70, so his view of a returning Christ on the Mount of Olives was during his resurrection to damnation. Somehow God used Jerusalem's AD 70 Lake of Fire (the "second death" of the city) to destroy the souls of the wicked when He threw Death and Hades into it (the dead and the souls of the wicked who were in Hades). So this Luke 16 parable is a bit more intentional than a simple homily about being kind to the poor.

Homer, have you ever read the record of Annas' abuse of the high priesthood for his own family's financial gain? As Edersheim's "Life and Times" tells us, even the Talmud recorded a rhyme of the day composed as a curse upon Annas and his family's heavy-handed control of the people and the monopoly they held over profits made at the expense of the populace. They had market booths in Jerusalem that made tremendous income by selling (and reselling the same) sacrificial animals to temple worshippers. The money-changers' surcharges alone for currency exchanges poured funds into Annas' hands; rather like a Mafia boss. When Christ overthrew their tables, He was essentially declaring war on Annas and his family for their corrupt practices. The Lazarus and the rich man parable was told so that Christ could point a finger of condemnation in the direction of Annas and his entire family of sons, and Caiaphas in particular.

This parable is not the end of scripture's references to the house of Annas. All 8 members of Annas' family who eventually became high priests are the same 8 "kings of the earth" in Revelation 17:9-11 who all went into destruction as part of that Judean Scarlet Beast with the harlot city of Jerusalem riding it (Annas, son-in-law Caiaphas, son Eleazar, son Jonathan, son Theophilus, son Matthias, son Ananus, and grandson Mattathias). But that's a story that needs to go in the "Revelation" section.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: "Go to now, ye rich men..." Josephus interprets James 5

Post by Homer » Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:59 pm

3Resurrections,

You wrote:
There are far too many parallels in this parable to be merely a flipped version of a common Jewish folk tale. There is a pointed message in it for the avaricious house of Annas the high priest; a warning of perishing in Jerusalem's Lake of Fire. That "great gulf fixed" between the rich man and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom in the parable? It's meant to portray the literal Kidron Valley stretching between those captives in a besieged Jerusalem in AD 70 and the Mount of Olives where Christ would physically stand before gathering His resurrected saints from that location (Zech. 14:4-7). There would be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" for those in the city who saw Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets resurrected and gathered into the kingdom, and themselves thrust out (Luke 13:28).
So this Luke 16 parable is a bit more intentional than a simple homily about being kind to the poor.
Seems to me there is a "pointed message" to all people in the parable. Luke 16:1, 14 & 17:1 indicate Jesus' audience was His disciples with the Pharisees listening in. Not hint of the priestly class there to hear it. The lesson of the parable is certainly about considerably more than being charitable to the poor. It is a warning to take heed while you can, before its too late. God's irrevocable judgement awaits. The name Lazarus simply means "God helps".

3Resurrections
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: "Go to now, ye rich men..." Josephus interprets James 5

Post by 3Resurrections » Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:52 pm

Hi again Homer,

You think that the Pharisees and scribes listening in to this parable didn't share that story with the Sadducees during coffee breaks at the Sanhedrin? Naturally this incriminating story got back to the high priests Annas and Caiaphas. These guys weren't dense. That's probably one of the reasons the chief priests conspired to put their fellow-priest Lazarus to death later - to try to ruin the analogy that Christ had made with His parable that painted them in such a bad light. In spite of all their efforts to squash Christ's message, these Sadducees and Pharisees (the 2 horns on the Beast from the Land / the False Prophet in Rev. 13:1) were thrown alive into AD 70 Jerusalem's Lake of Fire (Rev. 19:20), and ended up perishing in that "furnace of fire" in Jerusalem as Matthew 13:42 & 50 called it.

Of course, as you say, Christ's warning in this parable also applied to the Jewish population at large, as well as the high priests who disregarded this message. Why else did He give the warning in Luke 21:20-21 to depart from Jerusalem and Judea and flee to the mountains once armies surrounded it? Christ's warning definitely was heeded by roughly 1 1/4 million people, who left Judea and Jerusalem and fled to the mountains. All we need to do is take the casualty lists of this period from AD 66-70 and compare that total with the AD 66 Passover census record taken by Cestius Gallus for Nero. The resulting 1 1/4 million discrepancy between those two totals accounts for those who believed Christ's warning and fled in obedience, once they saw armies surrounding Jerusalem in the fall of AD 66.

The vast majority of the high priesthood members, the chief priests, and the wealthy in Israel did NOT flee, and were consumed by the civil war in the city during those AD 66-70 years. That was exactly the warning James 5:1 gave to the "rich men", who he knew would NOT flee, and would "weep and howl" when their miseries came upon them at the hands of the Zealots in Jerusalem.

Post Reply

Return to “Acts & Epistles”