Tuesday, October 1, 2019

A Temptation That Cannot Be Overcome?


Mr William Federer here likens the power offered by kingship to the temptation offered by the Ring of Power in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings:


However, if the powers granted to a king were the ultimate temptation that he makes them out to be, why is that so many kings, queens, and others of royal and noble blood have renounced their thrones, powers, and privileges to become either simple monks and nuns or martyrs for Christ?  The list of those who have done this is quite impressive:  In England alone, one could name Sts Hilda, Audrey (Etheldreda), Ceolwulf, Ine and Ethelburgh, Saxburgh, Edward.  And that is just a start.  Add to this all those of royal and noble blood all across Christendom who have done this for 2,000 years, and the list becomes lengthy. 

We will offer an ensample from Russian history to breathe life into these abstract details:

      Together with holy prince Michael on the journey to the Horde went his faithful friend and companion, the boyar-noble Theodore (Feodor). At the Horde they knew about the attempts of prince Michael to organise an uprising against the Tatars concurrently with Hungary and the other European powers. His enemies had long sought the opportunity to destroy him. In 1246 when noble prince Michael and the boyar Theodore arrived at the Horde, they were ordered on how to go to the khan, to proceed through a flaming bon-fire, to cleanse them of their evil intents, and to worship the primal-elements considered gods by the Mongols: the sun and fire. In answer to the pagan-priests commanding them to perform the pagan rituals, the holy prince replied: "A Christian doth worship only God, the Creator of the world, and not creatures". They reported to the khan about the unyielding of the Russian prince. Batu's attendant El'deg delivered the conditions: either fulfill the demands of the pagan priests, or die unyielding in torments. But this also was followed by the resolute answer of holy prince Michael: "I am prepared to submit to the emperor, since that God hath entrusted him with the destiny of the earthly kingdoms, but as a Christian, I cannot worship idols". The fate of the brave Christians was sealed. Taking courage in the words of the Lord: "Whoso wouldst to save their soul, shalt lose it, and whoso shalt lose their soul for My sake and the Gospel, that one wilt save it" (Mt. 8: 35‑38), the holy prince and his devoted boyar prepared for a martyr's end and communed the Holy Mysteries, which their spiritual father foreseeing this gave them. The Tatar executioners seized hold of the noble prince and for a long time they beat him fiercely, until the ground ran crimson with blood. Finally one of the apostates from the faith in Christ, by the name of Daman, cut off the head of the holy martyr.
      To the boyar Saint Theodore, if he were to fulfill the pagan ritual, the Tatars deceitfully began to promise the princely honours of the martyred sufferer. But Saint Theodore was not swayed by this – he followed the example of his prince. After quite vicious torments they beheaded him. The bodies of the holy passion-bearers were thrown for devouring by dogs, but the Lord miraculously guarded them for several days, until faithful Christians could secretly bury them with reverence. Later on the relics of the holy martyrs were transferred to Chernigov.

--Fr S. Janos, from his life of St-Prince Michael of Chernigov (+1246, commemorated 20 Sept.) https://www.holytrinityorthodox.com/iconoftheday/los/September/20-02.htm

Again, if royal and/or aristocratic power is such an overwhelming force for those who possess it, why did Sts Michael and Theodore allow themselves to be martyred rather than heed the words of the Tatars so that they could go on living and exercising their princely powers?  It is because they, and all the Orthodox kings, queens, etc. mentioned above, did not make an idol of political rights and powers.  Simply put, they wanted union with the Holy Trinity, not earthly pomp and might. 

It is rather the republicans and democrats who have made an idol of political powers and rights and projected this fetish of theirs onto kings while ignoring their own sin.  Can such a thing be true?  Consider the following:  We have noted how many of noble birth have been willing to give up their power.  How many republican-democrat-citizen-co-kings have been willing to give up their political rights and powers - the right to vote, petition the government for redress of grievances, etc. - and live simple lives directed by others?  We suspect that if an accounting were made, the percentage would be scanty compared to that of the royals/nobles who have done so.

It is thus the republicans/democrats who should be viewed with suspicion in politics:  They who raise their voices against God’s anointed king, calling him a tyrant; who raise their hands against him in rebellion; but who are themselves never willing to give up one iota of power of their own.

Their lust for power blinds them.  It was this same lust for worldly political power, this rebellion against God’s established order, that brought about the end of the Jewish nation in 70 A. D. in such a tragic, violent, and needless way:

THERE IS NO doubt that the character of the mission of Christ and its influence on the destinies of Israel and of the whole world, and not personal feelings and desires, formed the subject of the mysterious discussion in the wilderness. The deeply important ideas or the story of the Temptation reappear in many parts of the Gospel.  . . .

The first offer of the Temptation suggested bread by a miracle as a means of gaining control over human masses. It is interesting to note that when Christ actually used his power in order to feed a human multitude in the desert, the immediate result was His recognition as the Messiah by thousands of men and an attempt to "take him by force, to make him a king" (John 6:14-15).

Besides its vast general significance for all time, the Temptation of Christ also had its direct local cause and meaning. It was a period of unrest preceding the great rebellion against Rome. There were growing discontent and agitation among the more active elements of the Jewish people. Finally, the revolt broke loose. But due to the absence of a leader who could inspire confidence and unity, it ended in tragic failure because of the suicidal fight between the different revolutionary groups, which caused the major part of the extremely heavy losses and broke from within the backbone of the sedition. The fanatical power behind this uprising was, however, so great that, in spite of disunity and mismanagement, the rebels defeated the Roman army a number of times and it took three years of hard efforts of leading Roman generals finally to crush this rebellion.

The objectives of this revolt were not limited to liberation from Roman power. They included the ambitious urge to conquer and dominate the world under the command of a leader who was expected to appear at the right moment. Flavius Josephus, the historian and eyewitness of these events, wrote: "What did most elevate them [the Jewish rebels] in undertaking this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings; how about that time one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."

Such hopes were deeply rooted in the popular mind and were encouraged not only by prophecies but by historical facts as well. A slave boy, Joseph, became the virtual dictator of Egypt, where he had transformed the native population into slaves of the state and arranged a privileged and prosperous position for the Jewish immigrants.

Another popular case was the story of Mordecai, who succeeded in becoming the Prime Minister of Persia, where he created a safe and honorable position for his people and arranged the killing of some seventy-five thousand men who were hostile to the Jews.

Most of the people considered these achievements to be the will of God and believed that when the Messiah came He would act in a similar way, only more gloriously and on a much vaster scale, bringing an unprecedented triumph to the chosen people.

Did not the prophet Isaiah write: "And they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders . . . they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet . . . Thy gates shall be open continually . . . that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. . . . Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shall suck the breast of kings: and thou shah know that I the Lord am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer. . . ." (Isaiah 49:22,23 and 60:11,12,16.)

Of course the Bible also includes many statements of a completely different nature. There arc a number of wonderful prophecies which describe the true Divine Messianic ideology with such striking inner truthfulness that they were quoted even by Christ Himself.

It must be recognized that among the Jewish people and in the Old Testament scripture there were two opposed lines of thought about the Messiah — the one which really foresaw Christ and His message of truth, good will and eternal salvation; and the opposite which expected an earthly dictator who would conquer, terrorize, dominate and exploit other people for the glory of Israel as well as for the eventual advantage of those other nations. The Temptation in the wilderness was essentially a suggestion of a compromise between the two points of view, a compromise which, besides influencing the whole future course of history, could have prevented the then impending disaster of the Jewish nation.

However, in this fundamental question Christ recognized not human discord, but conflict between the ways of heaven and hell. He refused to make the slightest compromise and, in fact, greatly sharpened the conflict. The sword of division which Christ said would separate father from son and mother from daughter was first of all the result of this interpretation of the Messiah and His Mission.

At that time these questions had not only an abstract religious, but mainly a direct political meaning, because the general situation in the world appeared to encourage the most ambitious hopes. When Joseph took control over the Egyptian Empire he did it single-handed, because he could expect no assistance from his countrymen who were then weak and insignificant in number. But now there was a powerful, resolute nation, several million strong. The people were aroused by the insults of the unfriendly and tactless Roman governors, and large groups became possessed by a revolutionary spirit. They had fanatical faith that the approaching struggle was the one predicted by the prophets and approved by God. They were ready and eager to fight, to avenge the insults they had suffered and to re-establish and expand a glorious national kingdom.

The Roman Empire at that time, while immensely wealthy, was corrupted and weakened from inside. In view of these factors it is clear that the power over the earthly kingdoms mentioned in the Story of the Temptation was not just a figurative expression; it was a reference to a definite political possibility that might well have come to pass if Christ had accepted a compromise between His eternal objectives and the passionate desires of the majority of the Jewish people, who waited and hoped for the Messiah, the Son of David — in other words, a king and a conqueror.

Disregarding any considerations of a religious or supernatural order, I am convinced that the unparalleled personal influence of Christ, the formidable, fanatical aggressive forces which the impending rebellion placed at His disposal, and the general situation in the weakened and demoralized Roman Empire offered excellent opportunity for the creation of a powerful independent state. The situation and background were much more favorable than the factors on which Mohammed successfully founded his empire six centuries later.

The crown and recognition as Messiah the king were offered to Christ. But He refused to accept them. However, He offered His spiritual leadership to the whole Jewish nation, but this offer was disregarded (see Luke 13:34).

Explaining the nature of this conflict, the late Metropolitan Antony of Russia wrote the following lines: "There is another truth that remained unnoticed by the Bible students, namely, that the Hebrew Revolution was very intimately connected with the earthly life of Christ, the Savior, and determined, of course, as a result of particular Divine sufferance, several events of the Gospel; it will be seen later that the revolution was the main cause of the popular hatred that arose against Christ and that brought Him to the Cross."

I am convinced that this explanation is correct. The offended self-esteem of the Pharisees and chief priests and the treachery of Judas were only secondary contributing factors. The real cause of the tragedy was the irreconcilable conflict between the Divine ideology of Christ and the supremely evil spirit of the impending revolution.

The dramatic inner greatness of this conflict must not be underestimated. Christ requests supreme self-sacrifice, including life, if circumstances warrant, but it must be recognized that His adversaries who eagerly shouted "crucify Him" were also ready to sacrifice their own lives; only they were willing to die, not for the eternal ideals of good will and truth, but for the passion of hate, revenge and the urge for dominating the world.

I believe that the use of these evil passions as means intended to serve patriotic or idealistic ends is referred to as the worship of the devil; it represents the most dangerous of all evil temptations. The true Mammon, for the triumph of which even unselfish and apparently good men are willing to disregard the fundamental commandments of God and are ready to lie, hate and kill, can be better identified with the lust for political domination than with desires for personal wealth or pleasure. The most shameless deceptions and the most formidable outrages and mass murders can be traced much more to evil ideological causes than to any individual sin or crime.

The men responsible for the crucifixion of Christ were not drinkers, gamblers or pleasure lovers. They were church-going, Bible-reading puritans or fanatical rebel patriots. The future St. Paul may have been among them or, at least, in sympathy with them. I also believe that Judas betrayed Christ not for the thirty pieces of silver but for reasons which he considered patriotic because he recognized that Christ condemned and jeopardized the passionately desired rebellion by insisting on the spiritual instead of the political meaning of the idea of Messiah, by spreading division and by lowering the fighting spirit in the face of the approaching uprising.

Judas was among the twelve men elected by Christ. He remained with his Master during all the years of preaching, except for the last few hours. He participated in the intimate discussions and saw the miracles. It is impossible to consider that the eternal ideals and personality of Christ had no meaning for him. They undoubtedly had a meaning for him and for many others. But winning the rebellion had to come first.

I must stress that the divine personality of Christ and the eternal meaning of His sacrifice are not being discussed in this book, which deals not with what Christ did or said, but mainly with the evil deeds and ideas which He condemned and rejected.

In one of the most dramatic and severe statements of the whole Gospel, when the adversaries of Christ said, ". . . We have one father, even God" (John 8:41), Christ replied:

"Ye are of your father the devil, and lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44).

When the adversaries of Christ replied, "Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil," they insulted Christ and rejected His teaching, not from a personal but from a national and religious standpoint. And they finally remained in the Temple, while Christ was actually driven out. A careful reading of this whole discussion plainly indicates that the object of the controversy was not at all connected with questions of any individual human sins against the law or traditional morality; it was definitely a conflict of opposite national and religious ideologies. In His severe and crushing censure, which will thunder through the ages until the end of time, Christ condemned men with such aspirations, as being followers of the Devil. Christ defined their ideas and longings as being the lust of the Devil, which He characterized as murder and the supreme lie; the latter being stressed and repeated several times.

The conclusion of the discussion is given in John 8:59.

"Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

Following their Master, the disciples continued to oppose and condemn the oncoming revolution. In the first epistle of St. Peter, we read: ". . . Submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme, or unto governors ... as free, and not using your liberty as a cloke of maliciousness. ... Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king" (chap. 2:13, 14, 16, 17).

In St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, we read: "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour (chap. 13:5, 7). These lines were written about a decade before the rebellion.

In the second epistle of St. Peter, which apparently refers to tribulations of such nature, we read: "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities... for when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error... While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage" (chap. 2:9, to, 18, 19).

Flavius Josephus records as follows the first acts of another Simon, the great leader of the rebellion, which took place at the very beginning of the Revolutionary War.

"He [Simon, the Son of Gioras] proclaimed liberty to those in slavery and a reward to those already free, and got together a set of wicked men from all quarters. . . . Simon got a great number of those that were fond of innovations and betook himself to ravage the country; nor did he harass only the rich men's houses, but tormented their bodies, and appeared openly and beforehand to affect tyranny in his government."

I am convinced that the severe censure included in the epistles was addressed mainly to revolutionary agitators and not to ordinary sinners. However, even if this conclusion should be questioned, still the position of the disciples with respect to the revolution was well defined by their instructions to honor the king, obey the governors, pay taxes and so forth.

Although on a limited scale, the Palestine rebellion may be regarded as one of the most dreadful tragedies known to history. Of the million and one-quarter men in Jerusalem at the beginning of the siege, only ninety-seven thousand remained alive after the Romans captured the city. By far the greater part of the slaughter and of the incredible agony were inflicted by the Jewish revolutionaries themselves and only a smaller part by the Romans.

The character of the active elements in this unfortunate uprising may be seen from the following lines recorded by an eyewitness: "These men, therefore, trampled upon all laws of man and laughed at the laws of God; and for the oracles of the prophets, they ridiculed them as the tricks of jugglers. . . . Their inclination to plunder was insatiable, as was their zeal in searching the houses of the rich; and for murdering men, and abusing of the women, it was sport to them."

The historian describes in the following lines the terrible suffering of the population of Jerusalem while the Romans were still far away, and it is a moving account.

"And now as the city was engaged in a war on all sides, from these treacherous crowds of wicked men, the people of the city, between them, were like a great body torn in pieces. The aged men and the women were in such distress by their internal calamities, that they wished for the Romans, and earnestly hoped for an external war, in order to be delivered from their domestic miseries. The citizens themselves were under a terrible consternation and fear . . . nor could such as had a mind flee away; for guards were set at all places; and the heads of the robbers, although they were seditious, one against another, in other respects, yet did they agree in killing those that were for peace with the Romans."

The rebels repeatedly attacked each other by penetrating into the sections controlled by opposite revolutionary groups; and on many occasions fighting took place inside the temple of Jerusalem, which was occupied by the zealots and Idumeans of John of Gishcala. As a result:

"Dead bodies of strangers were mingled together with those of their own country . . . and the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in pools in the holy courts themselves. And now, O most wretched city, what misery so great as this didst thou suffer from the Romans, when they came to purify thee from thy intestine hatred! For thou couldst be no longer a place fit for God."

Finally, a strong Roman army approached Jerusalem and encircled it with a ring of fortifications. After several weeks of fierce fighting, the Roman Commander Titus made a reasonably generous proposal of peace, promising to spare the city and to return the Temple to the people. His appeal included the following severe censure of the rebels: "And what do you do now, you pernicious villains? Why do you trample upon dead bodies in this Temple? And why do you pollute this holy house with the blood of both foreigners and Jews themselves? I appeal to the gods of my own country and to every god that ever had any regard for this place, for I do not suppose it to be now regarded by any of them."

The foreigners referred to by Flavius and Titus were not the Roman soldiers. They were numerous Idumean bandits, whose presence in the city was due to the following event: Long before the approach of the Roman army the moderate groups, supported by the majority of the population of Jerusalem, aroused to extreme indignation by the brutal violence and the desecration of the Temple, got together and, after a bloody battle that lasted for several days, succeeded in beating the radicals, who finally ran away and entrenched themselves behind the high stone walls surrounding the Temple. In order to save the Revolution, the rebels called in gangs of well-armed Idumean bandits and with their help succeeded in defeating the moderate groups and organizing afterward a great massacre, in which tens of thousands of Jews were killed. Almost all the priests of Jerusalem were murdered at this time, including the high priest Hanan, whose father so actively participated in causing the crucifixion of Christ.

The proposal of peace made by Titus was rejected by the rebels with insults and mockery. Fierce fighting continued and increasingly cruel acts were committed by both sides. Hundreds of Jewish prisoners were crucified every day by the Romans in front of the city walls.

Meanwhile, the situation inside Jerusalem became one of indescribable horror. With the city surrounded, and most of the provisions deliberately destroyed long before in the civil war between the opposed revolutionary factions, the hunger became terrible and the population was dying in shoals. Groups of zealots continued to search the houses, torturing men in order to force them to give up whatever was left of their food. Burial of the dead was impossible and bodies lay everywhere, in the houses and on the streets. Thousands of corpses were thrown from the walls of the city, and when sallies were made, the men had to march over piles of dead bodies. The stench became so unbearable that the Romans were in some cases forced to move their lines farther away from Jerusalem, while inside the city there was hunger, rage, desperation and madness. In spite of all the disasters, some of the Jews preserved the fanatical faith that Jerusalem and the Temple were under the protection of God and, therefore, could not be conquered or destroyed.

The rebels continued to fight for a while with a mad, superhuman courage, but their resistance finally started to crumble.

In August 70 A.D., the Romans forced their way into the city and, after long and desperate fighting from street to street, they succeeded in breaking into the Temple and, while the battle was raging outside and inside, they set the holy house on fire. The destruction of the Temple completed the physical and spiritual collapse of the rebellion.

Flavius Josephus, who witnessed these events, concluded his description in the following sorrowful lines:

"As for the seditious, they were in too great distress already to afford their assistance (towards quenching the fire); they were everywhere slain, and everywhere beaten; and as for the great part of the people, they were weak and without arms, and had their throats cut whenever they were caught. Now round about the altar lay dead bodies heaped one upon another, as at the steps going up to it ran a great quantity of their blood. . . .

"This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind."

After the destruction of Jerusalem, the remaining part of its population was gathered together by the Romans inside the walls of the burned temple. Those who were weak or old were slaughtered, while the remaining men, women and children, numbering ninety-seven thousand, were sold into slavery or sent into various cities of the East, where they were burned alive or killed in other ways in the circuses for the amusement of the local population that was mostly hostile to the Jews. As a consequence of this rebellion, a wave of massacres and persecutions spread over several surrounding countries, inflicting heavy injury on the station and economic opportunities of the Jews living outside of Palestine.

It appears certain that this tragic uprising caused permanent harm to the Jewish nation, and to mankind in general. It is, therefore, important to understand its nature and causes. The rebellion was not inevitable. A number of other nations remained peaceful in their lands under the same Roman domination. Several of them, including France and Germany, eventually easily regained their independence during the fall of the Roman Empire and continued to grow in their territories until they became prominent world powers. It would undoubtedly be the same with the Jewish nation, had not this dreadful calamity destroyed the very flower of the nation, together with the splendid thousand-year-old capital — the traditional religious and intellectual center. Had it not been for this rebellion, the Jewish nation would undoubtedly have remained for the most part united in their own land and would gradually have created a powerful independent state, whose territory might well have extended from Egypt to the Black Sea and from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean. The country, situated on the cross-roads from Europe to India, China and Australia, would have been prosperous and powerful, with Jerusalem becoming one of the leading cities of the world. If the Christian leadership had remained there, it would have become the indisputable center of Christianity, exercising an immense religious and political influence over the whole Christian world. The catastrophe which destroyed this opportunity may well be considered as one of the greatest calamities not only for the Jewish nation but for the whole world as well.

The writer is convinced that the brutal Cessius Florus, the benevolent Agrippa and the wicked Simon Gioras and other leaders, were all only actors, who were either pushed aside or rode the crest of some all-powerful wave. The true forces in this tragedy were those two opposed charges of formidable spiritual energy that faced each other during the Temptation in the wilderness.

As a result of a profound and painful analysis, and a direct encounter with evil and its manifestations in the earthly process during the Temptation in the wilderness, Christ stated in His message the two sharply and fundamentally opposed ideologies or principles of life. A powerful and aggressive faction of the Jewish people, although not the majority, which at that time had gained control over national affairs, definitely rejected the principles of Christ and accepted the opposite ideology. This was the actual cause of the tragic outburst of agony and self-destruction. Therefore, the warning of Christ that the failure of the people to recognize Him as their spiritual leader would bring on disaster and the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44) must be understood in a literal way as defining the direct cause of the catastrophe.


This same unseemly longing for power will be the undoing of the republicans in ‘Christian America’ as well unless they repent.

Let them follow instead the clear teaching of the Holy Apostles and their successors the Holy Fathers:  ‘Fear God.  Honour the king’ (I Peter 2:17).

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

No comments:

Post a Comment