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.
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