Topic: The Seat of Moses
Question:
I have been reading your stuff on the seat of Moses. I am still confused. According to Is. 11, the power to 'bind and loose' was given to the King's prime-minister (shall we say), who in this case was Eliazar. Now from reading what you have written on the seat of Moses, and those who sat therein, one would expect Eliazar to have been a high priest since, those who sat on the seat of Moses (in the fullest sense) were high priests. But was Eliazar even a high priest?
Answer: What you are failing to do here is place the "Chair of Moses" and its succession in a historical context... given that the nature of that succession changed over time. You are also overlapping the political office of OT "prime minister" (as it was held by Eliachim in Isaiah) with the teaching authority of Moses (i.e., the "Chair of Moses"), which was not necessarily the same thing, nor held by the OT prime minister, nor by the OT king whom he served. The melding of these two offices only became possible with the coming of Christ Himself, Who is both the New Moses (a Prophet sent by God) and the New David (God's anointed King of Israel). Thus, when Jesus establishes the "Chair of Peter," as St. Cyprian and the other early fathers called it, this new office possesses qualities of both the Chair of Moses (doctrinal, teaching authority) andthe office of the King's prime minister who speaks for the King in His physical absence (the power to "bind and loosen"). As for the Chair of Moses being held by the High Priest, ... This was not always the case. For example, with the death of Moses, the office of his Chair did not pass to the sons of Aaron (the high priests), but rather to Joshua. Thus, for the majority of Israelite history, the Chair of Moses (that is, the doctrinal teaching authority of Israel), was held by prophets and other such teachers; and, in some cases, arguably by certain kings of Israel (e.g. David), who were prophetic rulers over the people in the sense that Moses was. However, it was only in the time of the Maccabees that the High Priest was recognized to be the ultimate, legitimate successor to the Chair of Moses (see: 1 Maccabees 14:41); and this was the state that existed in the time of Christ and just after, when St. Paul refers to the High Priest as "the ruler of the people" (Acts 23:5). (Acts 23:5).
Question:
According to Matt 23:2, those who sat on Moses' seat were the scribes and the Pharisees. How are we to know, from the Bible, that the scribes and the Pharisees were priests as such, or even high priests?
Answer: Here again, you are missing something. In Matt 23, what Jesus is referring to is the Sanhedrin as a whole -- an authoritative body, composed of both scribes and Pharisees, and presided over by the ruling High Priest (see John 11:47-51). In this, it is important to understand what Jesus means by the term "scribe." Notice, for example, it is always "scribes AND Pharisees"... with the scribes having primacy. By using the term "scribes," Jesus is referring to scholars of the Sadducee (priestly) party. Thus, He is referring to the scholars of the law who happened to be priests... as opposed to the same kind of scholars who were among the non-priestly Pharisees. And, we can see this illustrated quite clearly in Scripture itself. For example, in Matt 2:4, King Herod assembles "the chief priests and scribes of the people" to ask where the Messiah is destined to be born. Here, we can see that there were scribes (authoritative scholars) from both the priesthood and the people ("scribes of the people" being a reference to the Pharisees). Also, if you look at OT verse like 2 Chronicles 34:13, we see that there were special scribes among the Levites (the priestly caste); and in Nehemiah 8:9 (as well as in numerous other places), Ezra is called "Ezra the priest-scribe" ...and he was only one of a great number of these. Indeed, the verse same verse refers to "the Levites (priests) who were instructing the people" ...that is, in the Scriptures themselves. So, when Jesus speaks of the "scribes and Pharisees" holding the Chair of Moses, He is saying that the entire Sanhedrin -- composed of "priest-scribes" and of learned Pharisees -- holds teaching authority over Israel and must be obeyed.
Question:
Just being the ordinary bible reading "Joe" that I am, trying to make sense out of everything, I honestly cannot tell if any one of the scribes or the Pharisees were priests!
Answer: A "scribe" was a Scripture scholar and an authority on the "Mishna" (the oral law that accompanied the Scriptures). In Matt 2:4, it clearly says that the "chief priests" (as well as the "scribes of the people" -- the Pharisees) told King Herod where the Messiah was prophesied to be born. How did these chief priests know this, and why would Herod turn to them as authorities on Scriptural prophecy, if they were not scribal scholars themselves???? :- )
Question:
Were the scribes and the pharisees priests, and was Eliazar a high priest also?
Answer: No, the Pharisees were not priests, yet some scribes were. Both the Sadducees (the priestly party) and the Pharisees (composed of laymen) possessed scribes. As for prime minister Eliachim in Isaiah (you keep saying "Eliazar," which is incorrect), he was only a layman serving a secular king. His political office did not affect the teaching authority of Israel , but rather the government of the nation.
Question:
If the Catholic answer is what I would hope it to be, Ciaphas of the New Testament would have been a modern day Eliazar and Eliazar would have been a modern-day Moses.
Answer: Once again, ... The High Priest Caiaphas succeeded to the authority of the High Priest Simon Maccabee in 1 Maccabees 14:41 ...which is how, in NT times , the High Priest became both head of the nation and the chief custodian of the Chair of Moses. The situation with Eliachim, and his King Hezekiah, is very different, given that the High Priest only became ruler in the time of Maccabees because no prophet or king existed to rule over the people. Hope that helps to put the issue into perspective for you.
Mark Bonocore
Catholic Apologist
June 8, 2002