Each Associate, upon their accepting
of Jesus as their God-Father and The Family as their Brotherhood and Sisterhood, are
immediately placed under the protection of our God-Father and His Family and begin their
training to become a Made Member or Soldier. They are assigned to a CREW run by a CAPTAIN.
After becoming SOLDIERS, each RECRUIT
have the opportunity to become a Capo or Captain of a CREW. Captains are
responsible for training and recruiting and have the Honor of Leadership and a position as
a man or woman of respect.
Each CAPTAIN may be appointed several
Soldiers by the Under-Boss. But, the responsibility to RECRUIT ASSOCIATES and TRAIN THEM
into becoming SOLDIERS and, ultimately CAPTAINS is part of the responsibility of the
CAPTAIN.
Once a Captain builds his own CREW, he
then can Promote Soldiers into Capo or Captains Rank. With the approval of the Area
Under-Boss. When a Captain has built a crew and promoted several SOLDIERS into Captains,
they may be "Put Up" for promotion to Under-Boss by a VOTE of 70% of the
Captains, with final Approval resting with the Area Under-Boss.
When Captains achieve the Rank
of Under-Boss, they will be assigned an area, or "TURF" of their own . They may
take one Captain they have trained and recruited or a Captain appointed by the Under-Boss
and the Captain's Crew of Soldiers and Associates. The final choice rests with the
Under-Boss.
The Under-Boss is the leader of the
organization.
Ever wonder why the Bible has produced sio
many different views? Were you aware that the Bible was written by Jews in THEIR own
language and then converted to GREEK? And when it was converted to Greek, many words and
meanings lost the original substance. Read thiss and you will discover Truth and God like
you have never before! If you read this you will learn that each
passage of the Bible was written with and in a Jewish frame of reference. Learn how it was
written and you will get the full impact of what the writer was trying to say.
The Life of the Messiah from a Jewish Perspective
A series of lectures by Arnold Fruchtenbaum of USA, a Messianic Jew.
sent to YouthOfAmerica.Com by ben searl
1. The ‘LOGOS’
2. Zechariah in the Temple
3. The Birth of Jesus
"4 We Three
Kings of Orient Are…..?"
5. Jesus and Nicodemus
.6 The Healing of a Leper
7. The Calling of Matthew
8. Jesus Confronts Pharisaic
Tradition
9. The Sabbath Laws 1
10. The Kind of Righteousness God Requires
11. The Blind Mute Healed
12. The Unpardonable Sin Committed.
13. Tradition versus Scripture,
14. The Woman taken in Adultery
15. The Healing of the Man Born
Blind
16. Lazarus and the Rich Man
17.
The Resurrection of Lazarus.
18. Ten Lepers Healed.
19. The Triumphal Entry
20. The Seven Woes
Introduction
Most theological colleges have a course they call "The Life of
Christ". What is usually missed in these schools is that there is a Jewish
perspective that took place that by now is largely lost in the churches of the West. In
most Christian schools, colleges, seminaries and institutes in which they study the life
of Jesus including the ones I went to, when they get into historical backgrounds, they
invariably go to the backgrounds of Greece and Rome, and the Greco-Roman world, which is
very valuable for the books such as Romans, the latter part of Acts, Galatians,
Corinthians because much of what is said in those books of the Bible is written from that
backdrop.
However, the life of Jesus is not played out in the Greco-Roman world or
culture, but rather in the culture of first century Israel and the theology of first
century Israel, which is primarily, Pharisaic theology. Much of what goes on needs to be
understood from that specific perspective and if we don’t understand things from that
perspective we will miss much of what is going on in what is being written. That’s
why it is specifically "The Life of the Messiah from a Jewish Perspective", and
I hope as we go to various segments of the Gospels you will see a new area of knowledge by
virtue of that frame of reference.
1. The
‘LOGOS’ John Chapter 1.
The Gospel of John is often accused of being the most Gentile of the four
Gospels. But a more careful study of his Gospel shows that it is just as Jewish if not
more so than some of the others. John begins his Gospel with the famous sentence in verse
1 of chapter 1, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the
Word was God." Now most of you probably know that the term John used here is
the Greek word "Logos" which in English would mean "Word". But because
he used the Greek term "logos" many commentaries on John at this point go into a
rather lengthy deviation to explain what exactly ‘logos’ meant in terms of Greek
philosophy. They may take a few pages to do it or they may take many pages to do it
depending on the size of the commentary, but in the end they all say basically the same
thing.
And what they say is this; That the logos in Greek philosophy had two
concepts. These were the concept of reason and the concept of speech. After telling us
that in Greek philosophy the logos had these two concepts of reason and speech they then
try to point out that what John is doing in these first 18 verses of his gospel, is to
show how Jesus comes to fulfil the goals of Greek philosophy.
In that by reason he was the very idea of God and that by speech
he was the very expression of God. That’s all well and good to know but what these
commentators forget is that by profession John was not a Greek philosopher, but he was a
Jewish fisherman. What he really has in mind is not Greek philosophy, but the Jewish
theology of that day. In the Rabbinic literature of that day there was a concept that they
had developed called the ‘Memra’. It is an Aramaic term that means
"word". And since John was writing his gospel in Greek, he of course needed a
Greek term to translate the Jewish word ‘Memra’. The only Greek term he could
use adequately was ‘logos’ but when he says logos, he does not mean the logos of
Greek philosophy, but rather, the Memra of Jewish theology, and we will see this very
quickly.
Now if you read through the Rabbinic literature of that day you will
discover that the Rabbis taught six things about the Memra. Six things were true about the
Memra, and all six things come out one way or the other in these 18 verses.
First of all, the rabbis said the Memra was sometimes the same as
God, but sometimes distinct from God. They did not try in their writings to explain away
the obvious paradox. How could the Memra on the one hand be the same as God, but on the
other hand be distinct from God? They taught both statements as being true, and left it at
that. Notice how verse one read. "In the beginning, was the word, the word was with
God", therefore he was distinct from God, but then he says, "the word was
God", meaning he is the same as God. Like the rabbis at this point, John does not try
to explain away the paradox. How could this word be with God, distinct from him, but then
at the same time be God? This is explained later only in the terms of the tri-unity, in
that the One he is writing about is distinct from God in that he is not God the father,
nor is he God the Holy Spirit, yet he is the same as God in that he is God the Son, the
second person of that tri-unity. Only in that way, in terms of the tri-unity, could this
paradox of the Memra be explained.
The second thing that Rabbis had been saying about the Memra was,
The Memra was the agent of Creation. Whenever God created, it was always by means of, or
through the Memra, by means of his word. Without the word, the Memra, nothing would exist
that now does exist. In verse 3 John says; "all things were made by or through him,
and without him was not anything made that had been made." What the rabbis had said
about the Memra, John says is true of this logos. He is the agent of creation. All things
were made by or through him and without him nothing would exist that now does exist.
The third thing that the rabbis had been teaching about the Memra
was that the Memra was also the agent of salvation. Whenever God saved, it was by means of
the Memra. For the most part, in the Rabbinic writings the concept of salvation was in the
realm of the physical.
Whenever God saved Israel physically such as the exodus, out of the land
of Egypt, he did so by means of his Memra, by means of his word. In verse 12 however, we
are given a more spiritual dimension of the same truth. In verse 12 "But as many as
received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that
believe on his name." Concerning this logos, John says in verse 12, it is those who
believe on him, those who receive him; those are the ones who become children of God; they
are the ones who receive spiritual salvation, because this one is also the agent of
salvation.
The fourth thing the rabbis had been saying about the Memra was
that the Memra was the means by which God became visible in the pages of the Old
Testament. As you read through the OT, you find that periodically God takes on some type
of a visible form. This is often referred to in Jewish literature as the Shekinah. When
the rabbis spoke of the Shekinah, it emphasised a visible manifestation of God’s
presence. Whenever the invisible God became visible, whenever the omnipresence of God took
on a localised form, this visible localised form was the Shekinah Glory. On most occasions
it appears as a light or as a fire, or as a cloud or some combination of these three
things. That is not the only way it appeared, but in the majority of cases that is the way
it appeared – light, fire or cloud. And this was the visible manifestation of
God’s presence, this was the Shekinah, and the Shekinah was frequently connected with
the glory of God hence the title "Shekinah Glory".
Notice what he writes in verse 14, "And the word became flesh".
The word that back in verse one was in the beginning with God, was God, at a certain point
in human history, became visible. But this time not in the form of a light, or of a fire,
or of a cloud, but this time the word became flesh and John continues to write, "and
dwelt among us". Now of the two words that are often used to describe
"dwelling" in Greek, John does not use the regular word for dwelling in verse
14.
Instead he uses a unique word that is really a borrowed word from the
Hebrew, it is a word that comes from the word Shekinah. When the Greeks came in contact
with the Jewish world after Alexander the Great they came in contact with this word
Shekinah, and realised what it conveyed. They liked the term and wanted somehow to
incorporate the term into the Greek language, because in Greek mythology, you had the Gods
periodically coming down from Mt Olympus in some visible form and intermingling with human
beings.
There was one problem and the problem was this; The Jews have a letter in
their alphabet the Greeks do not have. The letter "shin" with which they made
the "sh" sound. In English you have to combine two letters "s" and
"h" to get the "sh" sound, but in Hebrew just one letter is enough.
However, in Greek you cannot combine any number of letters to get that "sh"
sound. The Greeks had a hard "s"; they could say "s" but they
couldn’t say "sh".
But what they did was to take the Hebrew word for Shekinah and incorporate
it into Greek. They Hellenised it and the Greek word used here is "skeinei"
which is the Greek or Hellenised form for Shekinah. Literally, it does not mean to dwell,
but to "tabernacle". It has its origins in Exodus 40 where the Shekinah Glory in
its visible form took up its residence within the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle and for
centuries it tabernacled with Israel. But now the Shekinah Glory has returned. (It
disappeared from Israel in the days of Ezekiel) Now it has come back, this time in the
form of flesh and once again it has tabernacled among us. You notice how in the next ( - -
-unintelligble - - - ) said with the glory of God, "we beheld his glory, glory
of the only begotten from the Father full of grace and truth." The clear statement of
verse 14 is that the one John is going to be writing about, Jesus of Nazareth, is the new,
visible manifestation of God’s presence. Once again God is in visible form, this time
as a man in flesh, and he dwelt, or tabernacled among us. So he was the new visible
manifestation which came by means of the word, by means of the Memra.
The fifth thing the rabbis had said about the Memra was that the
Memra was also the agent of revelation. Whenever God revealed himself, he did so by means
of his Memra, by means of his word. In verse 18 John writes, "No man has seen God at
any time; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father has declared
him." According to verse 18, one of the ministries of the logos is to come to
declare, to reveal the Father. The main theme that runs through the gospel of John is,
Jesus the Messiah the Son of God, but John also has several sub-themes that run through
his gospel and one of these sub-themes is that Jesus came for the purpose of revealing the
Father to men.
That is why John more than Matthew, Mark and Luke combined, tells us more
what Jesus taught, while the others seem to be more concerned with what Jesus did. John is
more concerned with what Jesus taught and said. We have more discourses in John than in
the other three gospels. In these discourses, what Jesus is doing, is revealing the Father
to the people of Israel. That is why it is John, rather than Matthew, Mark or Luke that
records the question one disciple asked, "Show us the Father", and Jesus turned
to the disciple and said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the
Father." All that is true of the nature of the Father, is true of the divine nature
of the Son as well, therefore he is the revealer of the Father. The same point is made by
the writer to the Hebrews chapter one verses one, two and three, where the writer says
that "while in the past, God had revealed himself in various ways (in various
portions), has in these last days revealed himself by means of the Son." He is the
agent of revelation.
The sixth and last thing the rabbis had been teaching about the
Memra, is that the Memra is also the means by which God signed his covenant in the Old
Testament. Of the various covenants made in the OT, either with the world in general, or
with Israel in particular, these were signed and sealed by means of the Shekinah Glory.
Now this sixth point does not come out as clearly as the other five points
do, but he does hint at it in verse 17 when he says, "The Law was given by Moses,
grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." The Law came as the result of the Mosaic
covenant, which was signed and sealed by the Shekinah Glory, in the book of Exodus chapter
24. The new manifestation of grace that came with the Messiah is the result of the new
covenant, which will be signed and sealed by the death of the Son of God, the Logos or the
Memra.
So what John is doing in these 18 verses then, is not showing how Jesus
fulfilled the goals of Greek philosophy, but showing that he came to fulfil the Jewish
Messianic hope. The very things the rabbis had been teaching about the Memra, is true of
this Logos that John will be writing about.
We can summarise what John wrote here in these 18 verse in four simple
points.
Number 1, the Word. The Logos, the Memra came in visible form.
Number 2, sadly, the world in general didn’t recognise him.
Number 3, even more sadly, his own Jewish people didn’t recognise him
either.
Number 4, those Jews and Gentiles who did, have become the children of
this new Shekinah Glory Light.
This then is one example of several that will follow, that if you look at
a passage from the Jewish frame of reference it was written in, you can get the full
impact of what the writer was trying to say.
2. Zechariah in the Temple Luke Chapter 1.
This first segment will be dealing with the birth narrative, and what you
will notice is that as we begin to deal with the birth and early life of Jesus, only two
gospels fully record the birth and early life and these are Luke and Matthew. Mark and
John begin their accounts when Jesus is already an adult. The stories in Matthew and Luke
are told from two viewpoints, not contradictory but supplementary, in that Luke tells the
account from Mary’s viewpoint, while Matthew tells the story from Joseph’s
viewpoint.
In chapter 1 verses 5 to 25 Luke gives us the account of the announcement
of the birth of John the Baptist. And the individual primarily involved in this section is
Zachariah and his function in these verses is to burn the incense. This was done twice a
day, in the morning and in the late afternoon, and what the process was you would take a
hot coal from the altar of sacrifice outside the temple building, you would take this hot
coal into the first room of the temple the Holy Place, you would set that hot coal upon
the altar of incense that stood before the curtain that separated the two rooms, you would
then drop incense onto the hot coal and there would be a sweet smelling savour, smoke that
would arise, penetrating through the veil as an offering to the Lord. For a two week
period it was Zachariah’s responsibility to do this twice a day.
Now because of an incident back in Lev 10 when the two sons of Aaron did
this ceremony in an improper fashion, they were killed, so the teaching came to be by this
time that if the priest does this ceremony in a wrong manner, improperly, he too would
die. So this may have been on his mind when he was performing this. In verse 10 we read
"And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense,
and there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar
of incense." By the time of the days of Jesus, the story about dying as a result of
burning the incense improperly, had gained an added dimension . And a common Rabbinic
teaching was that if he did it wrongly and was going to die, before he would die, an
angel, the angel of death, would be found visibly standing at the right, not the left, but
at the right side of the altar of incense.
Here is Zachariah, performing the ceremony, and all of a sudden and angel
does appear visibly, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. For note
in verse 12, "and when Zachariah saw him he was troubled and fear fell upon
him." Guess why?
By what he had been taught he expects to die, but the message of the angel
is not a message of death and judgment, but of new life and blessing to come. And he is
told that he will sire a son who be Messiah’s forerunner, and the herald of the King.
Later on in verses 26 to 38 we have the same angel announcing the coming of the birth of
Jesus to Mary. Looking at verse 30 we read, " And the angel said unto her, ‘fear
not Mary for thou hast found favour with God and behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb
and bring forth a son and shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called
the Son of the Most High and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father
David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no
end." When the message comes to Mary that she is to become the mother of the Messiah,
the message is related within the framework of the covenant that God had made with David.
The covenant God made with David promised four eternal things.
There would be first of all an eternal "house" or dynasty.
Secondly there would be an eternal kingdom.
Thirdly there would be an eternal throne, and
fourthly, there would be an eternal descendant.
And the eternity of the house, kingdom and throne are guaranteed because
the line of David was to culminate in a descendant who was himself eternal. All four
elements of the Davidic covenant are found in the message the angel gives to Mary. First
of all he mentions the issue of the Throne, in verse 32 "The Lord God shall give unto
him the throne of his father David." Concerning the house "He shall reign over
the house of Jacob forever." Concerning the kingdom, "of his kingdom, there
shall be no end." And here he re-emphasises three of the four eternal things of
David’s covenant, the house the kingdom and the throne. But again the three eternal
elements of house, kingdom and throne are guaranteed to be eternal because they are
focussed upon a descendent of David who is himself eternal. For in verse 35, "The
Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,
therefore also that the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of
God." What she will produce is the Son of God.
While in his humanity, he will have his origins with Mary, nevertheless in
his divinity he has (always) been pre-existent. What is going to come about with this
union of the physical and the supernatural is the God-Man, and by virtue of his being the
God-man he is the eternal descendant of David. For that reason he can guarantee the
eternity of the kingdom, the house and the throne. These things are put within the
framework of the Jewish covenants of the Old Testament.
3.
The Birth of Jesus Luke chapter 2
In Luke chapter 2 verses 1 through 7 we have the account of the birth of Jesus from
Luke’s perspective. Because of the statements which are made in verse 1-7 we can
pinpoint fairly accurately about when or what year, Jesus was really born. To begin with,
we know that Jesus was born prior to the year 4 BC. Because that is the year that Herod
the Great died, and the testimony of both Matthew and Luke is that Herod the Great was
living when Jesus was born. Since he died in the year 4 BC, it means that Jesus was born
prior to that time of Herod’s death. The decree of (Caesar Augustus in the time of )
Quirinius (governor of Syria) mentioned in verses 2 and 3 was passed in the year 8 BC.
Obviously Jesus was born after this decree, so that we can at least reach one conclusion,
and that is, Jesus was born somewhere between 8 and 4 BC. But we can even narrow it down
further.
According to Josephus, Herod left Jerusalem in what is the year 5 BC for
Jericho, and he spent the last months of his life in Jericho and that’s where he
died. When the wise men meet Herod it was not in Jericho, but they meet him when he was
still in Jerusalem which would mean that Jesus had to have been born prior to Herod’s
departure from Jerusalem in the year 5 BC.
If we take what the wise men say about how long ago the star appeared
before they finally arrived in Jerusalem, putting all these together we can say Jesus was
born somewhere between the year 7 and 6 BC. So Christ was born between 7 and 6 before
Christ! It sounds somewhat contradictory now but that’s the way it has turned out
because of some previous mis-calculation.
Now even more important is what happens next in verse 8 through 20 in Luke
chapter 2 in which he deals with an event that occurs at a time of the actual birth. Verse
8 says "And there were in the same country, shepherds abiding in the fields keeping
watch over their flock by night." Because of what verse 8 says, around Christmas time
in many American churches and American christian radio programs, there is a favourite
sermon which the person preaches and the main point of the sermon is invariably that Jesus
could not have been born on December the 25th. And the reason they give is that
you would not have shepherds and sheep out in the fields in the month of December. Whoever
tells you that has never been to Israel in the month of December. I have lived in Israel
for a number of years and have spent more than one December day in the Bethlehem
environment and there were sheep and shepherds all over the place. In fact that is about
the second or third month of the rainy season and the grasses are all growing again, and
that is a good time for the sheep and shepherd to be out there in the fields. These people
are interpreting what they read in verse 8 on the basis of what they would do in the state
of Montana in the month of December. Granted, you probably don’t have sheep and
shepherds out in the fields in Montana or in any of the northern parts of the USA but
that’s not the way we interpret what goes on in Israel. Now I am not arguing in
favour of a December 25th (birth)day, I am only saying that verse 8 cannot be
used to contradict a December 25th day. While we can say that Jesus was born
between 6 and 7 BC, we are not given sufficient information to pinpoint when within that
period Jesus was born. Maybe he was born December 25th, maybe he was born July
4th in anticipation of American independence day I don’t know. We
don’t really know exactly what time of year Jesus was actually born.
Regardless of the time of the year, certainly in verse 9 we are told that
"an angel of the Lord stood by them, the glory of the Lord shone round about
them." After something like five and a half or six centuries of absence, suddenly the
Shekinah Glory of God reappears in one of its more familiar Old Testament manifestations,
that of a light. By means of the Shekinah Glory and by means of the angel God uses both of
these things to announce the birth the Messiah to Jewish shepherds. Having informed them
the Messiah has been born he then tells them to go and look for this child. But as we know
from Matthew’s account, there were many babes in Bethlehem, so how could they know
which one was the right babe? So he gives them a sign in verse 12 "And this shall be
a sign unto you." Now while the word "sign" by itself does not require the
miraculous, it does at least require something out of the ordinary, something unusual.
What is unusual here are two elements. Number one is that they would find
the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and secondly, lying in a manger. The fact that the
babe is lying in a manger tells these shepherds, don’t look in private homes, but
look in stables. Stables in the area of Bethlehem were nor separate buildings but rather,
caves. Caves were found all throughout the hill country of Judah where Bethlehem is
located, and these caves are where they would house these animals particularly on rainy
days. So if the shepherds are told to look in these caves which are used as stables, and
being shepherds they would know where these caves were. In among these caves they would
find this babe.
But secondly the baby is wrapped in swaddling clothes. "Swaddling
clothes" does not mean regular baby clothes because that would not be a sign as it
would not be unusual. It’s a word that is used later in reference to "burial
cloth". The babe is wrapped in burial cloth.
Interspersed among the caves of the hill country of Judah were those used
for burial and those which were used as stables. As a matter of convenience, often burial
cloth was stored in these stable caves.
If a person died in Bethlehem for example, his body was taken out in some
type of a funeral procession, the first stop would be a stable cave where the burial cloth
was kept, the body would be wrapped and then the body would be put in a burial cave. The
stone over the burial cave would be rolled away, the body laid within and the stone rolled
back over the entrance to the cave. Because Jesus was born in a stable, Joseph and Mary
had to make use of that which was most readily available to them, and that was burial
cloth.
The symbolism should not be missed. On the first day of his life, his body
was wrapped in the same kind of cloth as he will be wrapped again on the last day of his
life, when his body is taken off from the cross. The clear point is that He came to die.
All of us here were born to live, but this One was born to die. And the purpose of his
birth is signified in his being wrapped in burial cloth.
Because of these two clues, the Jewish shepherds do find the child, and in
the closing section verses 18 through 20 we have the first recorded Jewish worship of the
Messianic Person. In Luke 2:21 we are told that when Jesus was 8 days old he was
circumcised and on that occasion his was given his name "Jesus". It is the
Jewish procedure to this day that the official naming of a son is not at birth but upon
circumcision which occurs on the eighth day. Circumcision was prescribed under two
covenants in the Old Testament. The first is the Abrahamic covenant where it was a sign of
his Jewishness. The outward sign of Jesus’ Jewishness is that he was circumcised
under the Abrahamic covenant. But secondly, circumcision was also commanded under the
Mosaic covenant. Under that covenant it signified submission to the law of Moses. Because
he came to live under the law; Gal 4:4 "Born of a woman, born under the law, for the
purpose that he might come to fulfil the law." By means of circumcision he is made
subject to the law, and on that occasion he is called "Jesus" his Hebrew name
was actually "Yeshua" which means "salvation". This was to be his name
according to Matthew chapter 1 because it is He that will save his people from their sins.
4
. "We Three
Kings of Orient Are…..?" Matt 2:1-12
This account of the visit of the wise men has given rise to a number of
questions, because what we have here is a number of men, Gentiles at that, asking the
question; "Where is he that is born the king of the Jews?" There is a common
Christmas song often sung in the Christmas season, the first line of which is; "We
three Kings of Orient are".
There are two theological blunders in that first sentence alone. The first
mistake is to call them Kings. Actually the Bible never refers to them as Kings.
They are referred to as "wise men", a term that means "astrologer".
The second problem in that song is to say "three". How many men
showed up? The common view is to say three, but the text never says three. We don’t
know how many there were but we do know that there were at least two, because of the
plural words used. Maybe there were two, maybe twenty, maybe two hundred or two thousand.
We don’t know. Certainly, there were enough of them to cause the whole city of
Jerusalem to be disturbed and troubled, which might imply considerably more than three
men.
But suddenly you have an unknown number of Gentile astrologers from the
east, (Babylonia) asking the question, "Where is He that is born the King of the
Jews?"
And the question this raises is; How would Gentile astrologers even know
anything about the concept of a King of the Jews in its Messianic sense? And even knowing
it, why would they want to come and worship him? Some have used this passage to try to
teach the concept of some form of Christian astrology, though the Bible clearly forbids
any such dabbling whatsoever. This raises several questions that we need to answer one by
one.
The first question to answer is, "How did they know about any such
concept of a Messianic kingdom? How they knew has to do with the star they saw in the
east. Now I must emphasise here that the way we interpret Scripture is that we always take
the Bible literally unless there is something in the context that indicates that we cannot
take it that way. There are 5 things about this star in this context that inform us that
this is not a literal star as we know it.
First of all, it is referred to in v 2 and 3 as "His
star", (with the personal pronoun). This is the Messiah’s personal star in a way
that is not true of any other star that God created.
Secondly this star appears and disappears on at least two or more
occasions.
Thirdly, this star moves from east to west.
Fourthly, it then moves from North to South
Fifthly and perhaps most conclusively, this star eventually comes down and
literally hovers over one house in Bethlehem.
Any literal star that will come down to hover over one house in Bethlehem
will end up destroying this entire planet. Because that is the nature of stars; They are
like our sun. They will destroy anything that comes near them.
So this is not a literal star in the sense that we know stars to be. The
root meaning for the word for star (Gk Aster) is the root that means to radiate or to be
brilliant. What we have here is the same thing we had with the Jewish shepherds (Luke 2:9
"The glory of the Lord") and that is the Shekinah Glory being used to announce
the birth of the King of the Jews, this time to Gentile astrologers. But again, How would
they know about any Messianic concept like this? Again the key is to know where they are
from. They are from the East and the East in the Bible is the Mesopotamian region of
Assyria, Babylonia or present day Iraq.
Now, of all the books of the Old Testament, only one book actually
pinpointed how many years would transpire before the first coming of the Messiah. That one
book is the book of Daniel. In Daniel chapter 9:24-27 Daniel pinpointed how many years
would transpire before the birth of the Messiah. Unlike other books of the OT the book of
Daniel was not written in Israel. It was written in Babylon. Half the book was written in
Aramaic, not Hebrew, which is the Jewish tongue, but Aramaic which is the tongue of the
Babylonians. As you read through the book of Daniel you will discover that Daniel the
prophet became the head of the Babylonian School of Astrology, not because he practised
astrology, but because he was noted for deep spiritual insights. When King Nebuchadnezzar
recognised Daniel’s unique ability he assumed that Daniel had these abilities because
he was a superior astrologer, and so he appointed him as head of that school, but Daniel
never received his information through he stars but from the Creator of those
stars, the God of Israel.
The day came when Daniel was able to save the lives of the other
astrologers because they could not interpret one of Nebuchadnezzars’s dreams. Because
of their inability, the King sentenced all of Babylon’s astrologers to be executed.
Among those arrested was Daniel, because from the Babylonian viewpoint, he was now not
only associated with that school, but he was the head of it. But Daniel requested and
received and audience with the king. He interpreted the dream, and after interpreting the
dream he saved the lives of all the others. There is no doubt that as a result of this,
many of these astrologers turned away from the worship of the stars, and worshipped
instead the Creator of those stars, the God of Israel.
Now these wise men had within their possession a book written by one of
their former heads, Daniel, that told them how many years would transpire before the birth
of the King of the Jews. At least that told them about when they should begin to look for
him.
But Daniel does not say anywhere in his book, that the Messiah’s
birth would be announced with some kind of star or brilliance in the sky. For that there
is yet another Babylonian connection found in the book of Numbers, chapters 22, 23 and 24,
three chapters that deal with the story of Balaam. Balaam had a reputation well
established. It was "Whomsoever Balaam blesses is blessed, and whomsoever Balaam
curses is cursed." Because of that reputation, the King of Moab hired Balaam to
curse the Jews. Four different times he takes Balaam up onto a high mountain from which he
can look down on the Jewish encampment. Four times Balaam opens his mouth to curse the
Jews and four times God takes over his tongue and he blesses the Jews instead. In these
four blessings he issues several Messianic prophecies, and one of these is found in
Numbers 24:17.
"A star shall arise out of Jacob to whom the sceptre of Kingship will
be given." Balaam connected the coming of the Messiah with kingship and with
a star.
Balaam was an astrologer. According to Numbers 22:5 he was also from
Babylonia. One thing the Babylonians are noted for archaeologically, is their ability to
keep historical records, so from the Balaam connection, and the Daniel connection, and
putting it all together, when these men saw this unusual brilliance in the sky, they took
this to mean that the Messiah had come.
Now while they had the book of Daniel, they did not have the book of
Micah. Micah prophesied that when the Messiah was born, he would be born in Bethlehem.
They didn’t know that. Logically, from their point of view, the place for the King of
the Jews to be born is the capital of the Jews, the city of Jerusalem. And that’s why
they come to Jerusalem asking, "Where is he that is born King of the
Jews?" Finally through a series of situations that involved Herod the Great
and the priests of Jerusalem, they discover that the place of birth was Bethlehem. They
begin heading for Bethlehem, the star reappears, and comes down and hovers over the house
(v9) where Jesus now was. They go to the house (v11-12) and we have the first recorded
Gentile worship of the Messiah. The shepherds were the first Jewish worshippers, the wise
men, about 3 years later, were the first Gentile worshippers. They present three gifts
(v11), gold, frankincense and myrrh. Each of which has symbolic significance in the OT .
Gold, the symbol of kingship
Frankincense, the symbol of Deity
Myrrh, the symbol of Death and Sacrifice
If the first verse of the Christmas song "We three Kings of Orient
are" is not entirely Biblical, the last verse is God and King and Sacrifice.
Hallelujah
We don’t believe in singing error any more than we believe in teaching error.
So while we might not agree with the first line we can all join freely in the rest of
the song without making any Biblical mistakes.
5.
Jesus and Nicodemus John Chapter 3.
Prior to the ministry of Jesus was the ministry of John the Baptist. The
fulfilling of his commission which he received from birth was accomplished when he
announced the Messiah was going to come. And he was going to point him out. He was asking
the people to prepare for Messiah’s coming by repentance and baptism. Those who were
baptised by John were committing themselves to accept that person who was the Messiah that
John points out.
So John had a rather effective and widespread ministry according to the
testimony of the gospels prior to his actually pointing out Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus is
initiated into his ministry by being baptised by John himself and then suffering a period
of temptation in the wilderness. But it is shortly thereafter that his ministry begins in
earnest.
In John 2:23-25 Jesus comes to Jerusalem for the first Passover following
his baptism. It is on this occasion that he goes public with his miracles, signs and
wonders. He did perform one miracle earlier in John 2:1-11, where he changed the water
into wine but that was a private miracle seen by only a few and it was not something that
was generally known. But now with the first Passover following his baptism at the end of
ch 2 he goes very public with his miracles because it is at this point he goes public with
his Messianic claims. Because the purpose of his miracles at this stage is to authenticate
his Messianic claims. That’s going to change later as we will see, but for now we
should note this important element. For the for the first part of his ministry, the
purpose of his miracles is to serve as signs to Israel, to get Israel to make a decision
concerning his Messianic claims. They were there to authenticate his person and his
message. His person, that he is the Jewish Messiah, his message, that he is offering to
Israel the kingdom of the Jewish prophets. If they will own him as their King, as their
Messiah, they could see the kingdom of the Jewish prophets established in their day. So
these signs were to serve as signs to Israel to get Israel to make a decision concerning
his Messianic claims. Later we will see at some point in his ministry, the purpose of his
miracles changes. For now suffice it to say they will serve as sign to Israel to get
Israel to make a decision.
Among the ones to observe the miracles of Jesus at the end of chapter 2 is
the man we are now introduced to in 3:1, Nicodemus, a Pharisee, a ruler of the Jews. By
calling Nicodemus a Pharisee, John tells us immediately his theological frame of
reference. For example, if we call a man a Baptist, a Presbyterian or an Anglican we are
saying something about the theological frame of reference in which he is found. The same
thing is true of the term "Pharisee". Among the teachings of the Pharisees is
the statement, "All Israel has a share in the age to come." What that meant is
that anyone who was born a Jew, by virtue of being born a Jew, would have automatic rights
into God’s kingdom. While a Gentile would have to undergo a process of conversion to
qualify, Jews had no need for that process. Anyone who had been born a Jew would have
automatic rights into God’s kingdom.
In later Rabbinic development they made certain exceptions to that rule.
Among these exceptions were Jewish believers in Jesus. There were others but initially all
Israel had a share in the age to come. Another popular sentence within Rabbinic writings
of that day said; "Abraham sits at the gates of Gehenna to snatch any Israelite
consigned thereto." If by some mistake, a Jew was consigned to go to hell, not to
worry, Abraham sits at the very gates of hell to snatch that Israelite before he has a
chance to fall into hell, because all Israel has a share in the age to come. That is the
theology that Nicodemus has when he comes to Jesus. And he is responding to the miracles
he saw at the end of chapter 2. Before the conversation gets very far, in verse 3 Jesus
says to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born again, (or anew or from above) he cannot see
the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said unto him, ‘How can a man be born when he is
old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born ? Nicodemus’
response is frequently misunderstood. In many sermons I have heard on John chapter 3, his
response is interpreted to mean that he didn’t understand what Jesus meant by that
expression, to be "born again". But notice, that is not his question. He is not
asking "how is one born again". What he is asking is; "How can one be born
again, when he is old?" Now if the problem was simply, what do you mean by
being born again, what difference would age make? How is one born again whether he is a
child, a teenager, a young man or an old man? Nicodemus does know something about that
term "born again". It was a term used in Pharisaic writings. What he
doesn’t understand is how someone has this experience after he has reached a certain
stage in life.
Within Pharisaic Judaism, there were six different ways of being born
again. All six different ways were in the realm of the physical and he did qualify for
four of these six ways, but he did not qualify for two of them. Let me also add at this
point that in Pharisaic writings to be born physically was given a certain expression.
That expression was, "to be born of water".
To be of water meant to be born physically, and to be born physically as a
Jew was all you needed to enter into the kingdom. Yet Jesus says you must be born again
and Nicodemus doesn’t understand how that is possible for someone that has reached a
certain age in life. And again, the reason he doesn’t understand it, is because in
Phariseeism, while they had that term, it was a physical term, and there were six
different ways of being born again.
But two he did not qualify for. One of these ways which he did not qualify
for was to convert from being a Gentile to Judaism. A converted Gentile was said to be
born again. Nicodemus was born a Jew, and he did not have to undergo a process of
conversion so he did not qualify for the new birth in this way.
A second way it was possible to be born again that he did not qualify for,
was to be crowned king. When a man was crowned king, he was said to be born again. John
doesn’t even hint that Nicodemus was a member of the house of David, apart from
Jeconiah. If he was, he didn’t find it significant enough to mention. But even if he
was, at this point in Jewish history, the Jews were thoroughly under the domination of the
Roman empire and there would have been no opportunity for him to have been crowned king
anyway. So these two ways, he couldn’t qualify for anyway.
There were four other ways that he did. The third way one could be born
again was by one’s Bar Mitzvah, that is the special type of Jewish confirmation that
occurs when the Jewish boy is thirteen years old, as through a ceremony at that point he
takes upon himself the obligations of the Law of Moses, and at that point from the
viewpoint of the Jewish law he is reckoned as an adult, and can be counted among the ten
men necessary for a Jewish service to be conducted. Having undergone this process of the
Jewish Bar Mitzvah ceremony, he is said to be born again. Obviously at this point,
Nicodemus is well past the age of thirteen. He was born again at that age.
The fourth way one could be born again and one he qualified for was to
marry. When a Jewish man took a wife he was said by the Rabbis to be born again. Now John
does not even mention that Nicodemus had a wife, but we know that he did because of verse
1 where he is referred to as a ruler of the Jews, which means he was among the 71 members
of the Jewish Sanhedrin. Among the prerequisites of membership of the Jewish Sanhedrin was
you had to be a married man. A single man of any age simply did not qualify. Jewish men in
those days married between the ages of sixteen and twenty so some time during that period
he was born again for the second time.
The fifth way it was possible to be born again within Pharisaic Judaism
was to be ordained as a Rabbi. When a man was ordained as a Rabbi, he was said to be born
again. Nicodemus being a leading Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin meant that he was
also ordained a Rabbi which occurred around the age of thirty in those days, and at that
point he was born again for the third time.
There was only one other way that it was possible to be born again, and
that was to become the head of a Rabbinic Seminary or Yeshiva or Rabbinic school where you
had the authority to both train and ordain future Rabbis. We know that Nicodemus had
attained even this level in Jewish society by the way Jesus addresses him in verse 10,
where Jesus calls him "The Teacher of Israel". (It is unfortunate that the KJV
has translated v10 to read "A teacher of Israel" ignoring that the Greek text
has the word "the" in front of it. The New Testament was translated by Gentile
committees who didn’t always understand the Jewish background, and when they saw
"the" teacher of Israel they saw nothing significant about it. But there is a
significant difference.) Those who were common Rabbis were referred to as "a teacher
of Israel" but anyone who was the head of a Rabbinnic seminary or Yeshiva was given a
title of "The Teacher of Israel".
The fact that Jesus calls him not "a teacher of Israel" but
"The Teacher of Israel", points out that he was the head of one of several
Rabbinic Academies in the Jerusalem area, something attainable at about the age of fifty.
At that point he was born again for the fourth time.
But having reached this level, at this age he has used up all of the ways
of being born again within Pharisaic Judaism. That is why he is asking the question the
way he is asking it. How can a man be born again when he is old? What he is saying is;
"I’ve used up all my options. From the framework of my Judaism there is no other
way of being born again." Except that is, the way he suggests in verse 4, that is to
re-enter his mother’s womb again, become a foetus again, be born again physically and
start the process all over again, being born again at the ages of 13, 20, 30 and 50. No,
what Jesus is doing with Nicodemus is using a very common Jewish method of teaching, which
is to go from that which is known to that which is unknown. The known is the expression
"to be born again", but the unknown was its spiritual ramifications and this is
what he proceeds to do next in verse 5.
"Jesus answered verily verily I say unto you, except a man be born of
water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh
is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." By saying
"…unless you are born of water and the spirit", Jesus is saying that the
teaching that all Israel has a share in the age to come, and that physical birth as a Jew
is totally wrong. A person needs two births, to be born of water and the spirit. To be
born of water is physical birth, but to be born of the spirit means spiritual re-birth.
Unless you are born both physically and spiritually, you cannot enter into God’s
kingdom. From verse 6 to be born of water is to merely be born of the flesh and fleshly
birth alone is insufficient to enter into God’s kingdom. He must also have a
spiritual re-birth and that is the kind of new-birth which is essential for entering the
kingdom.
Now the question is; "How then can you be born again
spiritually?" Now Jesus explains how one is born again spiritually. He points out
that there are two steps. God does one, but man must do the other. Verse 14; "As
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up.
Whosoever believes may in him have eternal life." Step number one is God’s step
to send his Son to be the final sacrifice for sin. When Jesus died on the cross he
provided salvation for all. God has done all he needs to do to provide salvation for all.
But because salvation has been provided for all, that by itself will save no-one. Because
there must be that second step in which the individual must personally believe before he
has eternal life.
Perhaps among the most famous verses in John’s Gospel is the very
next one verse 16 where the same two steps are repeated. "For God so loved the world
that he gave his only begotten Son", that is step number one. That is a finished
step. God has done all he needs to do to provide salvation for men. But again, that alone
saves no-one. Because then comes the second step. "whosoever believes on him will not
perish but have everlasting life." Now until Nicodemus himself takes the second step
and owns Jesus as his Messiah he will not have eternal life, he will not enter into the
kingdom. For Nicodemus, that was too much of a new truth for him to accept at this point.
Later on in chapter 7 we still find him struggling with it, but at the end of John’s
gospel he finally comes across and owns Jesus as his Messiah.
But in this first real confrontation between Jesus and this Pharisaic
member of the Sanhedrin there is already coming out the clear implication that Jesus is
going to be teaching things that will contradict the fundamentals of Pharisaic Judaism,
the dominant Judaism of that day.
6
. The Healing of a Leper Luke Chapter 5.
In verses 12 to 16 we have a section in which we have the healing of a
leper. There is a sudden shift here, not in terms of the miraculous per se because between
the events of chapter 2 and this chapter, he has performed a number of miracles already.
There is going to be something different with this one that will create a reaction from
the Jewish leadership. Under the Law of Moses, just about the only time a Jew could be
defiled by touching a living human body is if you happened to touch a leper. Normally you
would only be ceremonially unclean if you touched a dead body or an unclean animal. The
only way you could be defiled by touching a living human body is if you happened to touch
a leper.
Another thing important to note is this; From the time the Law of Moses
was completed, there was no record of any Jew who was ever healed of leprosy. This will
become important here. Yet in Leviticus chapters 12 and 14, two whole chapters of the Law
of Moses, are devoted to providing details in what the priesthood, the leadership of
Israel had to do in the case of a healed Jewish leper. According to those two chapters, if
a Jew said "I was a leper, but now I have been healed of my leprosy", on that
day they would have to offer up an initial sacrifice of two birds. Then for seven days
they were to investigate the situation to answer three questions.
Number one; Was the man really a leper? If "Yes", then secondly,
was he really healed of his leprosy? If "Yes", then thirdly, What were the
circumstances of the healing? Was it legitimate or not? If all three questions were
answered satisfactorily, on the eighth day there would be a lengthy (- - unintelligble - -
) ritual. On the eighth day they would offer up a trespass offering, a sin offering, a
burnt offering and a meal offering. They would then take the blood of the trespass
offering and apply it to the healed leper, the blood of the sin offering would also be
applied to the healed leper, and the ceremony would then conclude with the anointing with
oil.
While they had all this detail on what to do, as far as the written
records are concerned, they never did it. Because from the time the Law of Moses was
completed, there was no record of a Jew being healed of leprosy. Only a Gentile (Naaman
the Syrian) but no Jew. So while in Rabbinical literature they had all kinds of cures for
various diseases, there was no cure for leprosy. It was considered eventually in Rabbinic
writings, that a leper, a Jewish leper would only be healed when the Messiah comes.
For a good while before the days of Jesus, the Rabbis had divided miracles
into two categories. In one category were those miracles that anyone could do, if he was
empowered by the Spirit of God to do so. But there was a second category of miracles which
were classed as Messianic miracles, meaning miracles only the Messiah would be able to
perform. Altogether there were seven Messianic miracles, but three that apply to the
issues in the gospels and the first of these three, is the healing of a leper. The act of
healing a leper, by its very action would mean that the healer was claiming to be the
Messiah, because that was reckoned as a Messianic miracle. If we keep that in mind we will
understand why things happen the way they do.
In Luke 5 verses 12 and 13, Jesus heals a leper. Mark and Matthew also
point out that the man was a leper, but Luke verse 12 tells us that the man was "full
of leprosy". The leprosy was fully developed and it would not be long before the
leprosy would take this man’s life. Luke being a medical doctor always takes more
careful note about diseases than the other gospels do.
He heals the leper in verse 13, and in verse 14 note what he tells him to
do. "He charged him to tell no man, but, go thy way and show thyself to the priest,
offer for thy cleansing according as Moses commanded, (and why?) for a testimony unto them."
Who is the "them"? The leadership of Israel. He deliberately
tells the man to proceed directly to the leadership and begin the process of Leviticus
chapters 13 and 14, because he wants to force the Jewish leaders to begin investigating
his Messianic claims. So when this man finally appeared before the leadership and said
"I was a leper but now I have been healed of my leprosy", on that day two birds
were offered. And then for seven days he was investigated. In the course of those
investigations they learned three things. Number one, Yes, the man really had been a
leper. Secondly, Yes, the man really had been healed of his leprosy, there was no sign of
it now. But thirdly and most importantly, a man named Jesus of Nazareth did the healing.
From the Jewish frame of reference, the very act of healing the leper meant that he was
claiming to be the Messiah. It is no accident that at this very crucial point in verse 16
Jesus withdraws himself from people to give himself over to a period of prayer. Within the
context of what preceded and what follows, he was praying for what was about to happen
next.
What happens next is recorded in Luke 5:17-26. Now according to the rules
of the Sanhedrin, if there was any kind of Messianic movement, the Sanhedrin had to
investigate the movement in two stages. The first stage is called "The stage of
observation". A delegation was sent out to do nothing but observe. To observe what
was being said, taught and done. They could ask no questions, they could raise no
objections, they could only watch, observe. After a period of observation they would
return to the Sanhedrin and report and give a verdict. They would decree the movement
either to be significant or insignificant. If the matter was decreed insignificant, it was
dropped. If they decreed the movement significant, there would be a second stage with a
second delegation which was called "The stage of interrogation". This time they
would raise questions and objections looking for a basis to either accept or reject a
person’s claims. Because John came preaching the coming of a king and kingdom, he
underwent both those stages of the Sanhedrin’s investigations.
Now Jesus too is about to undergo those same two stages. What we have in
these verses is the first of these stages, the stage of observation. Note who’s
around in verse 17. "It came to pass on one of those days in which he was teaching,
and there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of
every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem." What we are told here is that
we don’t really have some local Pharisees in Capernaum listening to what Jesus is
saying. It is not that simple. Luke is very specific and says "all" of
the Jewish leaders have come together from every village, of Jerusalem, of Judea, and of
Galilee, they have all migrated together to Capernaum.
Now why have all the spiritual leaders of Israel come to Capernaum? There
was no Anglican convention at Capernaum at this time. Why have they all migrated up there?
Well this is their response to what has just happened in the previous section in the
healing of a leper. That was a Messianic miracle and it had to be investigated.
That’s why the whole body of the leadership had come to Capernaum. This is the stage
of observation. They can not ask questions or raise objections, they can only
observe what is being said, taught and done. And they followed the procedure strictly.
It is no accident that it is on this occasion Jesus claims to have
authority that belongs to God alone. Because while he is teaching, four friends of a
paralytic try to get the man over to Jesus. But they are not able to get him to Jesus
because all the leadership is there blocking the doorway, so what they do is go up to the
roof, and through a hole that they made they lower the man down to where Jesus is
teaching.
Now normally Jesus on other occasions proceeded to heal, but not so in
this case. In this case he makes a statement instead. He says to the man in verse 20;
"Man, thy sins are forgiven", knowing very well that that kind of a statement
would raise questions in the minds of the Pharisees. And it does.
But they have to keep it to themselves because it is the observation
stage. What Jesus does is to prove that he can say the easier "Thy sins are
forgiven" by performing the harder, healing the paralytic. When he heals the
paralytic there was instantaneous evidence because verse 25 points out, "Immediately
he rose up before them and took up whereon he lay." There was instantaneous evidence
that the man was healed, and again, the miracles of Jesus are to authenticate his
Messianic claims. If Jesus can do the harder, that is to heal the paralytic, it means that
he can say the easier "your sins are forgiven". If he can say the easier, it
means he was claiming to be the God-Man himself.
It’s very evident that when this group went back to Jerusalem to give
their verdict to the Sanhedrin, the verdict they came up with is "Men, this man is
significant." From that point on Jesus undergoes the second stage, the stage of
interrogation. From this point on, everywhere that Jesus goes, a Pharisee is sure to
follow. But this time, they are asking questions, they are raising
objections, looking for a basis to either accept or reject his claims. It begins
immediately in the following section from Luke chapter 5 verse 27 through 32 in the story
of Matthew.
7. The Calling of Matthew Luke Chapter 5:27-32
In this account Matthew is called to discipleship, and by profession
Matthew was a publican. Publicans were off limits for Pharisees and spiritual Jews so to
speak. Because publicans were working on behalf of the subjugating power, the Gentile
authorities of Rome. Although a Jew knew that if he took the job of a publican he would be
ostracised, Jews often bid to have this office. Not because it paid well but because of
what Rome allowed. If Rome decided that Mr Cohen owed Rome 5 shekels in taxes, a publican
could say to Mr Cohen, "You owe 10 shekels", collect 10, give Rome the 5 Rome
wanted and keep 5 for himself. As a result, the publicans became wealthy by extorting
their own people while working for the powers of Rome. Under Pharisaic law, publicans were
off limits, they were classed with prostitutes, their testimony was illegal in a court of
law. According to Phariseeism, repentance was virtually impossible for a publican.
There were two types of publican, both were bad, but one was worse than
the other. The better type of publican was the income tax collector, but the worst type of
publican was the customs official. According to Matthew’s account, he was of that
latter category. However Matthew recognises that the authority of the Messiah supersedes
the authority of Rome and leaves his office and becomes a believer and a disciple of
Jesus. And because this marks the time of his new birth, he throws himself a
"New-birth birthday party". What kind of people attend Matthew’s party?
Only other publicans, prostitutes and in this case Jesus and the disciples he has at this
point. The Pharisees are observing this and raising objections. The implication is that if
Jesus really is the Messiah, he wouldn’t associate with these types of people.
In his response to them Jesus says three things. Number one, It is the
sick who need healing. The Pharisees agreed that publicans were sick, so should he not go
to them that need his ministry? Secondly, the problem with Phariseeism was that it was
characterised by much sacrifice and keeping the external demands of the Law but it lacked
the requirement of mercy. And thirdly, it’s not the righteous that need to be called,
but the sinners.
The Pharisees felt themselves to be among the righteous. They agreed that
publicans were sinners, therefore he must go to them that are sinners to call them to
repentance and salvation.
This becomes the standard motif. Whatever he does, and wherever he goes,
and the people he associates with, the Pharisees begin objecting implying that if he
really was the Messiah, that would not be what he would be doing; that would not be his
characteristic. We are about to enter into a rather crucial area; the struggle between
Jesus and the Pharisees over the issue of traditionalism.
8. Jesus Confronts Pharisaic Tradition Luke Chapter 5.
In Luke 5:33-39 we continue in the second stage of Sanhedrin investigation
wherein everywhere Jesus goes the Pharisees follow, asking questions and raising
objections. We have here a conflict over one of the Pharisaic traditions. "And they
said unto him, the disciples of John fast often and make supplication, likewise also the
disciples of the Pharisees but thine eat and drink." Fasting was a common motif of
Pharisaism. In fact they fasted twice a week. Every Monday and every Thursday were both
Pharisaic fast days. It becomes apparent that while the disciples of the Pharisees
followed this procedure and the disciples of John also, neither Jesus or his disciples
were following this procedure and that is another point of conflict.
The main conflict that now develops is over a specific body of Pharisaic
tradition known as the Mishnah. At this point we must go back into history to survey the
development of Pharisaic tradition to give us a better idea of what is happening in
Jesus’ time and why there is such a battle between Jesus and the Pharisees over this
body of Pharisaic tradition called the Mishnah. When the Jews returned from Babylonian
captivity, it was recognised among the spiritual Jews among Israel, that the reason for
that captivity was Jewish disobedience to the Mosaic law. So Ezra, the Ezra of Scripture
began a school known as the School of the Sophrim (Heb. Sophrim = Scribes, sing. =
Sopher). The original purpose of the Sophrim was a legitimate purpose. The purpose was to
take each one of the 613 commandments of the Mosaic Law and expound them, interpret them
and explain them so that the Jewish audience listening to their teaching could understand
what the commandment meant, what is required and they could follow it and not break and
bring down divine discipline, such as another Babylonian captivity.
At that point they were doing the same thing that any Bible teacher does
when he takes the Scriptures and begins to expound the Scripture to explain its meaning.
When the first generation of Sophrim passed away, the next generation took the task more
seriously. They went beyond merely the purpose of explaining, they said it’s not
enough to merely explain, but we have to build a fence around the Torah, a fence around
the Law. But what did this fence around the Law consist of? The fence consisted of
additional rules and regulations, Rabbinic enactments, which could be somehow logically
derived from the 613. And by adding these other rules and regulations, this would comprise
the fence around the Mosaic Law. So while the Jew might break the laws of the fence, that
would keep him from breaking through and breaking the 613 and bringing another divine
discipline. So the schools of the Sophrim began going through this Rabbinic debate using a
form of logic called Pilpul and began to see how many new laws could be derived from the
original. We will see shortly how that pilpul logic worked. They began to add and add and
add more rules and more regulations. In the course of their discussions, the principle
they used was this. A Sopher may disagree with a Sopher, but he could not disagree with
the Torah, the Law of Moses. The law was given by God through Moses, it was sacrosanct, we
don’t debate its validity. So while the Sopher could disagree with a Sopher in
debate, he could not disagree with the original. After going backwards and forwards in
debate, they would eventually decide by majority vote what the enactment, what the
commandment, what the law would be.
They used a form of logic called the pilpul, which is a Hebrew word that
means "sharp" or "peppery" but it refers more specifically to a form
of logic where you try to derive a new commandment from a previous one in some logical
order. For example, one of the commandments of the Law of Moses says that you must not
seethe (boil) a kid in its mother’s milk. The original intent of that commandment was
to avoid a Canaanite practice where a new-born baby goat was taken from its mother, the
mother was milked and the new born kid was boiled alive in its mothers milk as a
first-fruit offering to the god Baal. The Jews were to avoid that kind of idolatrous
practice whatsoever. But by the time of the Sophrim the purpose behind the commandment had
been long forgotten. So the question arose; How do we make sure that we do not boil a kid
in its mother’s milk?
As they went back and forth in these discussions, pilpul and ???,
here’s what they came up with. Suppose you eat a piece of meat, and with that piece
of meat you drink a glass of milk. Now matter how remote, it is conceivable that that milk
came from the mother of the meat that you are eating. If you swallow them both together it
begins to seethe (digest) in your stomach and you have violated the Mosaic commandment
which says "you must not boil a kid in its mothers milk. It is at that point that you
have the law that you must eat separately dairy products from meat products. That was not
a Mosaic commandment, but a later Rabbinic commandment, so the Jews will not meat and milk
together but will separate them by around 4 hours.
So you have a new commandment right there, but pilpul goes even further.
Suppose you have a plate, and from this plate you ate a slab of cheese. You then wash this
plate. No matter how well you may wash it there might be a little speck of cheese you have
not seen on that plate left behind. Four hours later you choose to eat a meat meal. You
put that meat on the plate and that meat might pick up that little bit of cheese you
didn’t see and you swallow them both together. No matter how remote, it is still
possible that the cheese was made from the milk of the mother of the meat that you are now
eating. By swallowing them both together they then seethe (digest) in your stomach and you
have violated the commandment. So there’s now another rule. You must have two sets of
dishes, one set of dishes for your dairy food and another set for your meat dishes, and
that’s the way orthodox (?) Judaism follows it to this day. And on and on and on! So
in the end, for every one of the 613 commandments there were sometimes hundreds, sometimes
thousands of new commandments added.
The Sophrim finished their work about 50 or 30 BC and then came a second
school of Rabbis known as the Tanaim, (sin. = Tana) a Hebrew word that means teacher. They
looked at the work of the Sophrim and they said, "You know, there are too many holes
in this fence. We’ve got to plug up these holes." The Tanaim began issuing more
Rabbinic enactments but they operated by a crucially different principle. The Sophrim way
was, "A Sopher may disagree with a Sopher but not with the Torah." But in the
Tanaim’s development there was a rule that a Tana could disagree with a Tana, but he
could not disagree with a Sopher.
So the rules and regulations that the Sophrim came up with were as
sacrosanct as the Scriptures. After a while there arose a question how do you justify that
and they did so by developing a new theology as to where these Rabbinic laws came from.
They said that upon Mt Sinai, Moses really received two laws not one. There was the
written law, the 613 commandments contained in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus Numbers and
Deuteronomy, but Moses also received an oral law, which he memorised. It wasn’t
written down at that point he simply memorised it. He then passed it down to Joshua,
Joshua to the judges, the judges to the prophets, the prophets to the men of the great
synagogue, and the men of the great synagogue were the school of the Sophrim. At the time
of Jesus, what the Sophrim and the Tana were coming up with was considered as sacrosanct
as the Scriptures.
According to Galatians 1 Paul calls himself a trail-blazer of Judaism, a
term that the Tanaim liked to use and the implication is that Paul was a Tana.
He was involved in some of these later Rabbinic enactments for a while.
The Tanaim finished their work about 200 AD, then came a third school of Rabbis called the
Amoraim (sing. = Amora) which is Aramaic for teacher. They looked at the products of the
Tanaim and they said, "There are still too many holes in this fence." They began
adding more rules and more regulations for the next three centuries up until about 500 AD.
What the Sophrim and the Tanaim came up with together was known as the
Mishnah. What the Amoraim produce was called the Gamara and the Mishnah and the Gamara
together form the Talmud. The mishnah in small print adds up to about 1500 pages. The
Gamara is about the same size as the Encyclopedia Britannica. A massive piece of work.
We are not concerned about the Gamara during the period of Jesus since
that was not the issue, but we are concerned with the Mishnah, which by the time of Jesus
had taken equal rank with Scripture, and at some point as we shall see, assumed superior
authority.
The main bone of contention between Jesus and the Pharisees is over the
authority of the Mishnah. Jesus will reject it while they will affirm its authority. From
here on we will be using certain terms interchangeably. We will refer to the oral law, or
the Pharisaic law or the Rabbinic law or the Mishnaic law. These all refer to the same
body of tradition, rules and regulation which were added by the Rabbis. One of these
traditions was this matter of fasting every Monday and every Thursday.
Jesus responds to their attack by pointing out four things. First of all
in verse 34 and 35, he said "you don’t come to a wedding feast to fast, you come
to feast. At the moment the bridegrom is visibly and physically present. As long as he is
present there will be no room for fasting, and indeed from the time of that 40 day fasting
period before his public ministry, we don’t find any occasion of Jesus fasting while
he was present. After he is gone he says, there will be time for that but not while he is
present.
Secondly, in verse 36, "you do not put a new patch on an old piece of
garment." These were not days when things were sanforised. If you have an old garment
and you put a fresh patch on it to fix a hole, the first time you wash it thereafter, the
new patch will shrink and pull the garment together. The point here is that he did not
come to patch up Pharisaic Judaism, he didn’t come to help them in their work to
patch up holes in the fence. He did not acknowledge that the fence needed any building to
begin with.
Thirdly in verse 37 and 38, "You do not put new wine into an old
wineskin." Because an old wineskin has stretched as far as it will ever stretch. New
wine is wine that has begun fermenting but has not completed the fermentation process. If
you fill up an old wineskin with new wine, as the fermentation process continues you will
lose both the new wine and the wineskin. The point is that he has not come to put his new
teachings into the mould of the old Pharisaism. He is presenting something that is new.
Now fourthly in verse 39, he prophesies what the end product will be. They
will reject the new and follow the old.
9.
The Sabbath Laws Luke Chapter 6, and Matthew chapter 5.
Now while Jesus and the Pharisees will debate over the authority of the
Mishnah in general, one special area of conflict is over the way the Mishnah developed the
issue of the Sabbath. In Pharisaic Judaism the Sabbath had become greatly personified. The
Sabbath was the bride of Israel, and on Friday nights Israelites would go out and greet
and meet Israel’s bride.
It was also the Queen, Malkah Shabbat, Queen Sabbath. To that one
commandment that Moses gave; "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy", the
Pharisees added 1500 additional laws and regulations on the Sabbath issue alone.
What happens in Luke chapter 6 is that they violate four of these rules
and regulations.
Verse 1, "It came to pass on a Sabbath that they were going through
the wheat fields the disciples plucked the ears of wheat rubbing them in their hands. But
then the Pharisees said, ‘Why do you do what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath
day?’" Now by doing what they did, they violated four of these additional 1500
laws on the Sabbath.
When they took the grain off the stalk, they were first of all guilty of
reaping on the Sabbath. When they rubbed the wheat in their hands to separate the grain
from the chaff, they were guilty of threshing on the Sabbath day. When they blew in their
hands to blow the chaff away, they were guilty winnowing on the Sabbath day. When they
swallowed the wheat, they were guilty of storing the wheat on the Sabbath day.
Because of these rules it was against the Pharisaic law to walk on the
grass on the Sabbath day. What’s wrong with walking on the grass on the Sabbath day?
Well, walking on the grass nothing’s wrong, but here’s the problem. Unbeknownst
to you there might be a wild stalk of wheat growing out there in the grass. And as you are
walking on the grass on the Sabbath day you may step on the stalk and separate the wheat
from it and that would mean that you were guilty of reaping on the Sabbath day. Then as
you step on it you might twist your foot and separate the wheat from the chaff, and you
would be guilty of threshing on the Sabbath day. As you walk by, the hem of your garment
might cause a slight breeze that will blow that chaff away, and you would be guilty of
winnowing on the Sabbath day. When you are gone a bird might fly by and see that exposed
grain of wheat swallow it and you would be guilty of storing on the Sabbath day, so
don’t walk on the grass on the Sabbath day!
The thing to note is that the Pharisees never have a basis for accusing
Jesus of violating the Mosaic law. This he keeps perfectly down to every jot and tittle.
When they have reason to accuse him, it is always on the basis of Pharisaic law, Mishnaic
law. And Jesus often goes out of his way to violate their laws, refusing to recognise its
authority. When Jesus defends his action, he does so by pointing out six things. First of
all, he points out the example of David. Now the Mosaic Law never said that the Priest
could not give the showbread to a non-Levite, but Pharisaic law did say that. David ate
the showbread and in doing so violated Pharisaic Judaism. As they claimed that this law
was received by Moses orally, that would mean that this law was in effect in David’s
day, how come they never condemned David for his action? Certainly if David can violate
Pharisaic law, so can David’s greater Son.
Secondly, he points out the principle of the Law that insofar as the
temple service is concerned, the Priest has to work on the Sabbath day. In essence they
have to violate the Sabbath because that was a day of work for them, not a day of rest.
His point being, that certain works were always allowed on the Sabbath day, even under the
Mosaic law.
Thirdly, he also points out that as the Messiah he is greater than the
Temple, therefore he can allow what they disallow, he can forbid what they permit.
Fourthly, he quotes Hosea 6:6 which shows that the prophets clearly stated
that works of necessity and works of mercy were allowed on the Sabbath day. Healing was an
act of mercy, eating was an act of necessity. These were always allowed on the Sabbath
day.
Fifthly, he points out that the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.
Not only is he Lord of the Temple, he is also Lord of the Sabbath. As Lord of the Sabbath,
he can allow what they disallow.
Then sixthly he points out that they had terribly misconstrued the purpose
of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. God’s divine
purpose for the Sabbath was to refresh man, not to enslave him. But by means of the 1500
Sabbatical rules, by personifying the Sabbath, by teaching that Israel was made for the
purpose of observing the Sabbath, they totally missed the purpose of the Sabbath. The way
they were keeping the Sabbath shows their misconception of it. But again, while they
taught that Israel was created by God for the purpose of observing the Sabbath, the
opposite is true. The Sabbath was made for Israel, to give them a day of rest. But this is
going to be the consistent pattern. They will debate and conflict over the Mishnaic law,
Pharisaic law in general, but especially in the realm of the Sabbath law.
10. The Kind of
Righteousness God Requires Matthew 5.
The high point is reached in the Sermon on the Mount, so turn to Matthew
chapter 5.
The Sermon on the Mount, as this is usually referred to, comes at a
specific point in his ministry. It comes shortly after he has closed the apostolic group
of 12 and he now has his fixed group of disciples. Up to now it wasn’t closed, now it
is. Secondly it comes after there has been some sharp initial conflict with the Pharisees
over the authority of the Mishnah. It was a time in Jewish history when the Jewish people
were looking for redemption, specifically the Messianic redemption. It was known from the
old Testament prophets that righteousness was going to be the means of entering into the
Messiah’s kingdom. Pharisaism was offering to Israel a form of righteousness. The
question that the ministry of Jesus now raises is; Is Pharisaic Judaism really the kind of
righteousness required, or is it sufficient? Will he substantiate and authenticate
Pharisaic Judaism, or will he repudiate it? And if Pharisaic Judaism is not the kind of
righteousness that you need, then what kind of righteousness do you need to get into the
kingdom?
From that perspective perhaps the most important single verse is verse 20
of Matthew 5. "For I say unto you that except your righteousness will exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees you shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of
heaven." With this one statement Jesus repudiates Pharisaic Judaism on two grounds.
First of all, as to the kind of righteousness you need to get into the kingdom, secondly
as to the proper interpretation of the kind of righteousnes the Mosaic Law demanded.
It’s a repudiation of the Pharisaism that had developed up to this point. Now as a
unit, the question we should ask is, "What is the Sermon on the Mount?" What is
it as a package, as a unit? There have been a number of basic answers, but among the most
common ones is that the Sermon on the Mount is a way of salvation. This is a liberal view
mostly, reflected in positions people take that if I live up to the Golden Rule I will
make it to heaven.
Well, even if you live up to the Golden Rule, you are not going to make it
to heaven as heaven is not attained by means of works. That was not the purpose the Golden
Rule was given to begin with. This sermon as a unit is not to explain the way of salvation
otherwise salvation would be by works.
Secondly, in some circles it is taught that this is the constitution of
the future Messianic kingdom. I don’t think that that is the purpose of the Sermon on
the Mount either, because that would require a total re-institution of the Mosaic Law and
the Mosaic Law will not be re-instituted in this full system in the Messianic kingdom.
A third common answer is that this is intended to be Christian ethics for
this age. I don’t think that’s a good answer either because it would also
require the full keeping of all 613 commandments by the church saints today as well.
If this was Christian ethics for today, it would mean no more bacon and
eggs in the morning, no more ham on rye. All these things were no-no’s under the
Mosaic Law.
Now he does say many things which of course do become Christian ethics for
this age, but as a package that was not the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount. So three
things it is not. It is not the way of salvation, it is not Christian ethics for today, it
is not intended to be the constitution of the future kingdom.
As a package, what this sermon is, is Christ’s interpretation of the
kind of righteousness which the Law of Moses demanded. It is Christ’s interpretation
of the kind of righteousness the Law of Moses demanded in contra-distinction to the
Pharisaic interpretation of that same Law. That is its purpose. He is going to explain
what Moses’ Law really demanded over against the way the Pharisees have taken it. And
the basic point of difference is, did Moses command only mere external conformity, or is
something more than external conformity required?
Chapter 5 verses 17 to 20 spells out his own purpose of the Mosaic Law, he
came for the purpose of fulfilling it, not destroying it. By means of his life he
fulfilled all of the 613 commandments that were applicable to him. Many of course
weren’t but every commandment of the 613 which were applicable to him he kept, and he
kept the Mosaic Law perfectly. He will be the One who will fulfil the Law down to its jot
and its tittle, meaning down to the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, down to the
smallest portion of a letter of the Hebrew alphabet.
But having spelt out what he intends to do with the Law, fulfil it as
it is written, not as it is being re-interpreted by the Pharisees, he now begins
to show examples of the difference. Notice how certain verses start out. Verse 21
"you have heard that it was said…", verse 27, "you have heard that it
was said…", verse 31 "It was said also", verse 33 "Again, you
have heard that it was said", verse 38 "you have heard that it was
said…", verse 43 "you have heard that it was said…". When the
issue is a matter of the Mosaic Law, the formula is, "It is written". When the
issue is that of the Mishnaic Law or the oral law, the formula is, "you have heard
that it was said…". What he does is take one example after another of a Mosaic
commandment, and then shows the difference between the way the Pharisees interpreted it,
over against the way he is going to interpret it, meaning what was really required of that
commandment.
He begins in verse 21 to 26 with the law of murder. According to Pharisaic
interpretation, you were not guilty of violating the righteousness of this commandment,
until you committed the act of murder. Jesus said, that’s wrong. While you don’t
violate the letter of the commandment, until you commit the act, the righteousness of the
commandment is violated before that. Before someone commits an act of pre-meditated
murder, he begins by developing an animosity towards the victim. Once that animosity is
there internally, the righteousness of the Law has been violated. As it says in verse 22,
as soon as you call your brother "raca" a Hebrew term that means "you
empty-head", you have at that point violated the righteousness of the Law. At that
point the Law has been broken, and that internal violation will then lead to the external
violation of committing the act of murder.
Or verses 27 through 30 the issue of adultery. Moses said, "thou
shalt not commit adultery". According to Pharisaism, you were not guilty of violating
the righteousness of the Law until you commit the act of adultery. Jesus said that’s
wrong. Again you do not violate the letter of the commandment until you commit the act,
but the righteousness of the Law is violated earlier. Because as he points out, before one
commits the act of adultery, he begins lusting after a woman other than his wife. Once
that lust is there internally, the righteousness of the Law has already been violated. And
mere external conformity was not God’s desire when he gave the commandments of the
Mosaic Law.
So back and forth, over and over again. They say this, I say this. They do
this, but this it what you really should be doing. And the whole sermon constantly divides
between the way Pharisees do it, and the way God intended the Law to be kept, until we
come to the end of the sermon, in Matthew chapter 7.
In Matthew chapter 7 he concludes by pointing out to Jewish people that
they now have two options. They can continue building on the Pharisaic interpretation of
the Law and Pharisaic righteousness, but that will be building upon a foundation of sand,
and a house built on that foundation is destined to collapse. But you can also have the
option of building on my interpretation of the Law, that will be building upon a
foundation of rock, and that house will stand. And that is the choice he gives to the
masses of Israel, they have got to make the choice; there’s not going to be any
reconciliation between Jesus and the Pharisees.
In verse 28 of Matthew 7 "It came to pass when Jesus ended these
words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having
authority, not as the Scribes."
The Jewish masses clearly understand that there is a sharp difference
between the way Jesus is teaching to the way the Pharisees are teaching, not only in
content, but in style and type as well. To see how the Pharisees and the Scribes taught
you only have to read two or three pages of the Mishnah. Over and over again the formula
is the same. Rabbi so-and-so said this, Rabbi such-and-such said that. Every Rabbi taught
on the basis of previous Rabbinic authority. But Jesus throughout his expositions quotes
no Rabbi, no Scribe, no Tana, nobody. He teaches the Law and interprets it as one who has
authority to do so. As the Messiah, he certainly has.
With this sermon, the dividing line is complete. He has repudiated
Pharisaic Judaism, both as the proper righteousness, and the proper interpretation of the
Mosaic Law. It is his rejection of Pharisaism that in turn led to their rejection of his
Messiahship.
11. The Blind Mute Healed Matthew Chapter 12.
The event we are about to read is found in some detail in two gospels,
Mark chapter 3 and Matthew chapter 12. Matthew gives us the greater detail so we will stay
with Matthew’s gospel. However Mark points out that while the event takes place up in
Galilee, the events are instigated by Scribes who have come down from Jerusalem. That
second stage, the stage of interrogation is now over with. They have come to a verdict and
the opportunity to present the verdict is about to present itself. In verse 22 of Matthew
chapter 12; "There was brought unto him one possessed with a demon, blind and dumb,
he healed him inasmuch as the dumb man spake and saw."
In verse 22 the circumstances begin with the casting out of a demon that
caused the person controlled to be both blind and dumb, or mute, so that he could not
speak. Now the act of casting out demons was not all that unusual in the Jewish world of
that day. Even the Pharisees and their followers had the capacity to cast out demons.
Jesus even said as much in verse 27 when he challenges them with the question, "By
whom do your sons cast them out?" But in the framework of Pharisaic Judaism, the
casting out of a demon required one to use a specific ritual. This ritual had three steps
to it. In the first step the exorcist has to establish communication with the demon, the
demon speaks using the vocal chords of the person he controls. Then secondly, after
establishing communication with the demon, he would have to find out the demon’s
name. Then thirdly, after learning what the demon’s name was, he could by use of that
name, order the demon out.
There are other occasions in the gospels where we find Jesus using that
method. One example is in Mark chapter 5 where Jesus is confronted by a demoniac where he
asked him the question, "What is your name?" and the answer he received was,
"My name is legion, for we are many." In that context he used the traditional
Jewish approach.
There was one kind of demon that Judaism could do nothing about, and that
was the kind of demon that caused the person controlled to be dumb, or mute, so that he
couldn’t speak. Since he could not speak, there was no way of establishing
communication with this kind of a demon, and no way of finding out this demon’s name,
so within the framework of Judaism it was impossible to cast this kind of a demon out. But
the Pharisees have been teaching that when Messiah comes, he will even be able to cast out
this kind of a demon. Here we have the second of those three Messianic miracles. The first
was the healing of a leper, the second was the casting out of a dumb demon.
In verse 22 that was the kind of demon Jesus does cast out, and in verse
23 that miracle raises the very question among the Jewish masses, that the miracle was
intended to raise. "Is this not the Son of David? Isn’t this the Jewish Messiah?
He is doing the very things we have been taught from childhood that only Messiah would be
able to do." We should note carefully, that they did not raise this question when he
cast out other types of demon.
When he cast out other demons, the question they raised was; "By what
authority does he cast out demons?" Back then, the issue was the issue of authority.
When he cast out a dumb demon, the issue was not authority, but "Is he the Son
of David?" Because the frame of reference from which they came, this was something
that only Messiah was supposed to be able to do.
12. The Unpardonable Sin Committed. Matthew Chapter 12.
Now while the Jewish masses were willing to raise this question,
"Isn’t this the Son of David?", they are not willing to make that decision
for themselves. Instead they are looking to the Pharisees, their leaders to make that
decision for them. It has been a consistent pattern throughout Jewish history that the
Jewish people have continued to belabour under the complex we call the leadership complex.
Which ever way the leaders go, the people are sure to follow. We see it often in the Old
Testament when we are told, ‘when the king did that which was right in the eyes of
the Lord, they followed, when the king did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord
they also followed.’ Even in our own day when Jewish believers in the Messiah testify
to their Jewish contacts, eventually most of them will raise the same objection. If Jesus
was the Messiah, how come our Rabbis do not believe in him? Have you heard that before?
It’s a common objection. It’s the old leadership complex objection. In New
Testament time, because of the stranglehold that Pharisaism had on the masses, this
complex was uniquely strong. So while they were willing to raise the question, "Is
this the Son of David?" they don’t want to make that decision for themselves.
Instead they are looking to their leaders, the Pharisees, to make it for them.
The Parisees are now stuck with one of two options. The first option is to
proclaim Jesus to be the Messiah in light of all the evidence. The second option is to
reject his Messianic claims. But, if they do take that second option, and reject his
Messianic claims, they will have to at the same time be able to explain away, how come he
is performing those very miracles they have been saying only Messiah will be able to do.
In verse 24 they do take that second option, and they reject his Messiahship. Then to
explain away his ability, they claim that he himself is possessed, not by some common
demon, but by the prince of demons Beelzebub. Beelzebub by the way is a combination of two
Hebrew words that mean "The Lord of the flies". He is controlled by the prince
of demons, the Lord of the flies. This becomes the Pharisaic basis for the rejection of
the Messiahship of Jesus. He is not the Messiah, on the ground of being demon possessed.
Jesus responds in verses 25 to 30 by defending himself in four ways. First
of all in 25 and 26 he points out that this could not be true because it would mean a
division in Satan’s kingdom. Secondly in verse 27 they themselves have recognised
that the gift of exorcism was a gift of the Spirit. Thirdly, in verse 28, this miracle
actually authenticates the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah, and fourthly it shows that
he is stronger than Satan, not subservient to Satan. Having said this in verses 30 to 37
of Matthew 12, he now pronounces a judgement upon that generation of Israel for being
guilty of a very unique sin, the unpardonable sin, for the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Because this sin is exactly what he says it is, - unpardonable, judgement is now placed
against this generation, a judgement which can under no circumstances be alleviated or
removed, a judgement which will come 40 years later in 70 AD with the destruction of
Jerusalem and the Temple.
We should make it very clear in our minds, exactly what the unpardonable
sin is, in the context in which it is always found. First of all it is not an individual
sin, but it is a national sin. And secondly it was committed by the Jewish generation of
Jesus’ day, and cannot be applied to later Jewish generations.
And the content (definition?) of the unpardonable sin is; -
The national rejection by Israel, of the Messiahship of Jesus while
he was present,
on the grounds of being demon possessed.
Again this is a national sin, it is not an individual sin. Individuals of
that day could and did escape the judgement as did the apostle Paul among others. It is
not a sin that any individual could commit today. Every sin is forgivable to that
individual who will come to God through Jesus the Messiah. But for the nation as a nation,
it is unpardonable. Now keep in mind when Jesus died, he died for every type of sin
not only for certain sins and not for others.
So that is not a sin that any individual could commit today, nor is it a
sin that any nation could commit today, because Jesus is not now physically and visibly
present with any nation offering himself as that nation’s Messiah. That was a unique
relationship he had to Israel alone. And again it is a sin that is unique to that
generation of Jesus’ day and cannot, as often has been applied to later Jewish
generations. We are going to see from now on, how often two key words keep coming up. And
these two words will be; "this generation", because this generation of
Jesus’ day is guilty of a very unique sin.
The committing of the unpardonable sin by that generation meant two things
for them.
Number one, the kingdom he was offering to establish is now rescinded.
They have lost out on seeing the Messianic kingdom established in their day, instead it is
to be re-offered to a later Jewish generation that will accept it, the Jewish generation
of the Great Tribulation, and the details of that are spelt out in Matthew chapters 24 and
25.
Secondly it means that this generation was now under divine judgement and
40 years later in 70 AD it came with the fall of the city and the temple. But having
listened to these words of rebuke and judgement, in verse 38 the Pharisees try to retake
the offensive and we read; "Then said the scribes and the Pharisees answering him
saying, ‘Master, we would see a sign from thee’, but Jesus answering them said,
‘An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, there shall no sign be given
to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in
the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth.’
In verse 38 the Pharisees demand yet another sign as if Jesus had done
nothing so far to authenticate his Messiahship. From the time his ministry began, he
performed numerous miracles since that first Passover, including the miracles they
themselves labelled as being uniquely Messianic miracles.
Yet in spite of all this they reject his claims, so now Jesus announces a
new policy concerning the purpose of his miracles. No longer will the purpose of his
miracles be to serve as signs to Israel, to get Israel to make a decision. That decision
has now been made. From here on, the purpose of his miracles will be different and that is
to train the twelve disciples for a new kind of work they will have to conduct because of
this rejection, the kind of work we find them conducting in the book of Acts.
But for the nation, no more signs but one, the sign of Jonah, which is the
sign of resurrection. A sign that will come to Israel on three occasions. First, the
resurrection of Lazarus, secondly, the resurrection of Jesus, and thirdly, the
resurrection of the two witnesses during the Great Tribulation. After now stating the new
policy concerning the purpose of his miracles, in verse 41 he continues spelling out more
words of judgement, and notice carefully the emphasis on that particular generation. Verse
41; "The men of Ninevah will stand up in the judgement with this generation, and
shall condemn it." Verse 42; "The Queen of the south will rise up at the
judgement with this generation and shall condemn it."
Jesus now brings them the example of two Gentile elements out of the Old
Testament. The men of Ninevah and the queen of Sheba. These were Gentiles who had a lot
less light to respond to, but the light they had, to that light they did respond. And so
at the Great White Throne Judgement, these Gentiles will be able to stand and condemn this
particular Jewish generation for being guilty of the unpardonable sin.
The words of judgement then end with the story about a demon in verses 43,
44 and 45, but the point of the story is often missed. It concerns a demon that
wasn’t cast out but simply left of his own free will, to find a better flat in which
to live. He searches for a while, but when he can find no vacancies, he decides to try to
go back into the person he was indwelling earlier. But upon his return, he finds that
person swept, he also found him garnished, but, he also found him empty. Because in the
interval period when the man was not demon controlled, he was not indwelt by some other
spirit, be it either the Holy Spirit or another demonic spirit. So because he remained
empty, this was able to re-enter him but no longer willing to live by himself, he invites
seven of his friends to join him, and the last state of that man is become worse than the
first. Because at first there was only one demon in him. Because he remained empty, he now
has eight demons residing in him. But he point of the story is that last phrase of verse
45; "Even so will it be also unto this evil generation", again emphasising
‘that generation’.
This generation began with the preaching of John the Baptist, and the
calling of John was to prepare this generation for the acceptance of the Messiahship of
Jesus. By means of the preaching of John, this generation was ‘swept’, this
generation was ‘garnished’. But now, with the rejection of his Messiahship, this
generation also remains empty, and because it remains empty, the last state will be worse
than the first. At the first under Roman domination they had to pay tribute to Rome but
they retained their national identity. Jerusalem was standing, a temple was functioning in
all its Herodian glory.
But 40 years after these words were spoken the legions of Rome invaded the
land. After a two year seige, Jerusalem was destroyed, the temple was torn down, until
there was not one stone still standing on top of another, and the Jewish people were
dispersed all over the world. And so indeed, the last state of that generation, did become
worse than the first. And the dispersion is still with us. The fact that I am a Jew, that
I was born in Siberia, Russia, saved in Brooklyn New York, grew up and spent a lot of my
time in Texas and now in California is a picture of this dispersion. The fact that Jews
are here in England is a picture of this dispersion. If that’s not dispersion, then I
don’t know what dispersion could possibly be. But that’s not the only result of
what happened in this particular chapter.
Now at this point the ministry of Jesus changes, and it changes radically
in four important areas. The first change we have already mentioned. The purpose of his
miracles is no longer to get Israel to make a decision. The purpose of his miracles from
this point on will be for the training of the twelve, to prepare them for what they will
have to do in the book of Acts.
The second change concerns the people for whom he performs miracles. Until
the event of Matthew 12 he performed miracles for the benefit of the masses, the
multitudes, without requiring them to have faith first. From here on, he will perform
miracles only in response to the needs of individuals, and from now on he will require
that they have faith first. Also from that same conjunction until now he told that person,
go proclaim what God has done for you. From now on he instructs them to tell no-one what
God has done for you. He initiates a policy of silence, and those who benefit from his
Messianic authority are forbidden to share it.
The third change concerns the message that he and his disciples will now
be giving. Until this event both he and they went all over the land of Israel proclaiming
Jesus to be the Messiah to the Jewish audience at large. In chapter 10 the disciples were
sent out two by two to do exactly that, but, as of now his disciples must also follow the
policy of silence. They will be forbidden to tell anyone the he is the Jewish Messiah. So
for example in Matthew 16 when Peter makes his great confession and he says "you are
the Christ (the Messiah) the Son of the Living God", Jesus then tells Peter
"tell no-one that I am the Messiah." What they were allowed to do, they are now
forbidden to do until his own resurrection.
The fourth change concerns his teaching method. Until this event, when he
taught the masses he taught them clearly, in terms that they both could and did
understand. One example is in Matthew chapters 5, 6 and 7 in the sermon on the mount, and
when he was done we are told, the people understood what he said and where he differed
from the scribes and the Pharisees.
But now beginning with the very next chapter, chapter 13, he begins a new
method of teaching called the Parabolic Method of teaching. And when in Matthew 13:10 his
disciples asked him "Why have you begun teaching them in parables?", Jesus
answered that there are two purposes for the parabolic method of teaching. The first
purpose is for the disciples. For them the parables were to illustrate the truth. But for
the masses, it’s for the purpose of hiding the truth. To teach them in terms that
they cannot, and will not understand.
For example then turn to Matthew 13:34. "all these things spake Jesus
in parables unto the multitudes, and without a parable spake he nothing unto
them." Now this was not true before Matthew 12 but is very true after Matthew 12.
From here on in when he speaks to the masses, he always speaks parabolically, in terms
that they cannot and will not understand. Mark’s account of the same verses adds a
bit more detail, and adds something. In Mark chapter 4 verse 33 he says this; "And
with many such parables spake he the word unto them as were able to hear it, and without a
parable spake he not unto them, but privately to his his disciples he expounded all
things." This is his consistent method. When he addresses the masses he teaches them
parabolically, in terms that they cannot and will not understand. But afterwards when he
is all by himself and privately with his disciples he explains what they mean, because for
them the parables are to illustrate the truth. But for the others, it will hide it.
Because the unpardonable sin has now been committed and the light has now been rejected,
no further light will be given.
It is impossible to really understand why his ministry changes so ( - -
unintelligble - -) in these four areas, but we do understand clearly how crucial the
events of Matthew 12 are. Because the events of Matthew 12 set the stage for the second
half of his ministry. They set the stage for the events of the book of Acts. They set the
stage for a new entity to come into being, the Church, the body of the Messiah, they set
the stage for Jewish history for the next 2000 or so years.
A very important thing happened there and that’s why Matthew 12 is
the most important event in the life of Jesus with the exception of course of his death
and his resurrection. We can understand why his ministry changes only in the light of
Matthew 12 and the commitment of the unpardonable sin.
Yet even after those events ( - - unintelligble - -) the Pharisees come
back demanding a sign. Turn for a second to Matthew 16. In Matthew 16 verses 1-4 we have
both the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to Jesus again demanding a sign. In verse 4 he
again answers them in the same way which is consistently true after Matthew 12, that for
them there will be no more signs but one, the sign of Jonah, and he departed. Again the
sign of Jonah is the sign of resurrection that will come to Israel on three occasions, the
resurrections of Lazarus, of Jesus and of the two witnesses during the Great Tribulation.
13. Tradition versus Scripture, Mark Chapter 7
In the time of Jesus, the Mishnah had become equal in authority with the
Scriptures, and at times was considered to have even greater authority. In Mark chapter 7
verses 1 through 4 we have again a conflict over a specific issue in the Mishnah. The
Mosaic Law never commanded a Jew to wash his hands every time he ate the smallest morsel
of seed. But the Mishnaic law clearly demanded that. And when they observed that the
disciples of Jesus and Jesus himself do not wash their hands every time before eating they
come attacking and in verse 5 the Pharisees and the scribes ask him "Why walk not thy
disciples according to the tradition of the elders?" Here’s your New Testament
title for the Mishnah.
What the Jewish people call the Mishnah, the New Testament calls the
Tradition of the Elders, or elsewhere, the Tradition of the Fathers. These are that same
body of tradition that they took seriously. Now, let me give you four short quotations
from the Mishnah itself, that emphasise how important they felt the Mishnah was.
Quote #1. "It is more punishable to act against the words of the
scribes than those of the Scriptures. If a man was to say something in order to speak
against the words of the Scriptures, he is not to be treated as a rebel. But if he should
say something that contradicts the words of the scribes, then he is to be treated as a
rebel and punished, for it is more punishable to act against the words of the scribes than
those of the Scriptures."
Quote #2. "He that says something that he did not hear from his
Rabbi, causes the Shekinah to depart from Israel.
Quote #3. " He that contradicts his Rabbi is as he that will
contradict the Shekinah. He who speaks against his Rabbi, is as he that speaks against
God."
Quote #4. " My son, give more heed to the words of the Rabbis, than
the words of the Law of Moses."
In these quotes it is obvious how far they had elevated Mishnaic law. And
so if the Mishnaic law says "wash your hands before eating", you have to do that
no matter what. The Mishnah itself says; (quote) "It is better to walk four miles to
water than to be guilty of not washing your hands." Another quote says, "One who
neglects hand washing before eating is as he that went in unto a prostitute." A third
quote; "He that neglects hand washing is as bad as a murderer." So make sure you
wash those hands before you eat the smallest seed. That’s how far it went.
Remember, they don’t find a basis ever to accuse Jesus of violating
Mosaic Law, only Mishnaic law, but Jesus readily admits to doing that. When Jesus answers
them he answers by pointing out three things.
Number one, the true character of Pharisaic traditionalism is hypocrisy.
Because it shows an external religion with no inward reality. They are like the ones
Isaiah prophesied of; "They honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from
me."
The second problem he points out in verse 8 is; "Ye leave the
commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." He points out that often in
order to keep a Mishnaic commandment you have to leave following a Mosaic commandment.
But then thirdly he makes a stronger statement in verse 9; "He said
unto them, full well do you reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your
tradition." Not only does Pharisaism often involve a lack of fulfilling a Mosaic
commandment, it goes a step further at times and actually rejects a Mosaic commandment.
And he gives one example in verses 10, 11 and 12, the principle of the ‘Corban’.
The word corban is a word that means ‘dedicated’. The system works something
like this. With one wave of the hand and saying this one word ‘corban’, it meant
that everything you owned at that moment materially, was dedicated, committed. What that
meant was that you could do one of two things with it. You could either donate it to the
temple treasury, or secondly you can use it for your own private use. What you could not
do with it, was to give it for somebody else’s private use.
Many Pharisees were converts to Pharisaism, their parents not necessarily
Pharisees themselves. They were often loathe to aid parents who were not themselves
Pharisees. The Mosaic Law said; "Honour your father and your mother."
The way the Mosaic law elaborated that commandment included that you were
responsible for the welfare of your parents once they got too old to take care of
themselves. But there was a way around it. That was the principle of the corban. If a
Pharisee saw his non-Pharisaic father coming towards his home and knew his father was
having financial problems or whatever, he could just wave his hand and say
"corban". When the father came and stated his need, then his son could say,
"I wish you had seen me earlier. I have just recently decreed my present possessions
as corban and by law I can no longer give it for anybody else’s private use."
The intent is not necessarily of course to give it to the temple treasury, since he was
still allowed to keep it for his own private use.
This was a means by which they got around the clear Mosaic commandment,
"Honour your father and your mother." In this way they literally rejected
God’s Law to keep man’s law. In verse 13 Jesus says; "In many such like
things you do." From the Mishnah there are many, many examples. Some of you may be
familiar with a book called "When being Jewish was a crime", by R??? Friedland,
He has a chapter in which he gives a number of these types of examples in his book in how
in his training, he found ways to get around the Mosaic Law through what was later
Rabbinic tradition. Once again, this attack from the Pharisees does not create any
impression upon Jesus since he refuses to recognise the authority of the Mishnah.
He now turns against them and tells them a parable. In this parable he
makes three points.
Number one, Pharisees were plants not planted by God, so were destined to
be uprooted. Secondly They are blind leading the blind, and so;
Thirdly, both will fall into a pit, and that pit of destruction will come
in 70 AD.
Later, when he is alone with his disciples, he explains the meaning of the
parable to them, because that’s his pattern; to the masses parabolically, to the
disciples privately he expounds the meaning of these terms.
14. The Woman taken in Adultery John Chapter 8.
Let’s take another passage. Let’s turn to John 8.
As I mentioned regularly they attack him for violating Mishnaic law, but
he affirms only the Mosaic Law and therefore there is no impression made. What happens in
chapter 8 verses 1 through 11 is the one attempt the Pharisees make to get Jesus to say
something that would contradict the Mosaic Law. If they get him to contradict the Mosaic
Law, it will render his own affirmation of it null and void. He is not going to keep it as
he claimed to every jot and tittle.
The occasion is when Jesus is teaching rather publicly the masses and in
verse 3 of John 8 the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery having set
her in the midst they said unto him "master, this woman has been taken in adultery,
in the very act." And verse six points out; "This they said tempting him."
Now by saying what they just said, they gave themselves away. The gave themselves away in
a simple form. They claimed that this woman was guilty of adultery because she was caught
in the very act. Well it is impossible to be caught in the act of adultery, unless there
is at least two of you. You can be singularly accused, but to be caught in the very act
requires at least two or more, but where is the male counterpart to this relationship?
Nevertheless, they set the trap next in verse 4 and 5; "Now in the
Law, Moses commanded us to stone such. What sayest thou of her?" The Greek is more
emphatic. "Moses said this, but you, what do you say?" In contrast to Moses,
You! What do you say? It’s an attempt to get him to say something that would
contradict the Mosaic Law. Jesus in the beginning chooses to say nothing but in verse 6
Jesus stooped down and with his finger wrote on the ground. It is somewhat fascinating how
frequently commentaries on John try to figure out what it was that Jesus was writing on
the ground, as if after 2000 years there is something in the sand they could still
decipher.
In the Greek text the emphasis is not upon the writing but it is upon the
finger. "With the finger, he wrote upon the ground." The emphasis is
specifically on the finger.
Why the finger? Of the 613 commandments of the Mosaic Law, 603 of these
were written in manuscript form but 10 of these were inscribed upon tablets os stone. One
of these 10 had to do with the law of adultery. Furthermore, according to Exodus 31:18,
the ten commandments in stone were inscribed, not chiselled, but inscribed by the finger
of God. The emphasis on the finger is to point out that he is the author of the adultery
law. He knows exactly what that commandment states. He knows exactly every (?) of Moses
commanded concerning that commandment and its punishment if the commandment was violated.
When he is pressed for an answer he finally gives them one in verse 7 when he says;
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast the stone at her", and
again he stooped down and with his finger wrote on the ground. When they pressed him for
an answer he gives a very simple one; "Those of you without sin, let him cast the
first stone,’ and once again he writes on the ground emphasising the finger with
which he wrote.
Now verse 7 has usually been misunderstood to mean that what Jesus is
saying is; "Unless you are sinlessly perfect, you shouldn’t judge people."
So if you are sinlessly perfect, then you can go ahead and cast the first stone. If
that’s what Jesus was saying here, he was violating the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic
Law did not require sinless perfection for punishment to be carried out. If that was the
basis under the Law then no-one under the Law could be executed by anybody, and the Mosaic
Law clearly mandated execution for specific sins. So for him to say that only if you are
sinlessly perfect can you cast the first stone, he would be violating what the Mosaic Law
taught.
But that’s not his point at all. His point is this in conjunction
with the writing with the finger. Yes, the Mosaic Law did say; "Thou shalt not commit
adultery." Yes, the Mosaic Law did say that if you violated the commandment you had
to be stoned at the mouth of the two or three witnesses. You had to have those two or
three witnesses, but this they have because they claimed she was caught in the very act.
But that’s not all that the Mosaic Law demanded. The Mosaic Law also
said, it is the witnesses at whose testimony someone is being executed, they must be the
ones to cast the first stone. But that’s not all. In Exodus 4 and Exodus 17,
it’s also pointed that the witnesses at whose word someone is being executed, they
must not be guilty of that same sin. The point that Jesus is making is this. If you are a
witness, and you are innocent of this same sin, then proceed to cast the first stone. And
guess what happens. One by one, they squirrel away, implying that they were not innocent
of this same sin. And perhaps standing among them is the one with whom she was caught in
the very act. This was the one time effort they made to get Jesus to violate the Mosaic
Law. It failed miserably. They don’t try this trick again. From here on in they go
back to the old course where they accuse him of violating the Mishnaic law, but not the
Mosaic Law.
15. The Healing of the Man
Born Blind. John Chapter 9.
In John Chapter 9 verses 1 through 41 we have the account of the healing
of the man born blind. The chapter could be subdivided into 5 sections. The first division
is verses 1 through 12 which details the physical healing of the man born blind. In verse
1; "Now as he passed by he saw a man blind from his birth. His disciples asked him
saying; "Rabbi, who did sin, this man or his parents that he should be born blind? If
you have analysed this question at any time you should have noticed that there is
something very strange in the content of this question. The strange part of this question
is not; "Did his parents sin that he was born blind?"
We can see how they might have arrived at that because in Exodus 34 verses
6 and 7 it does say that the Lord will visit the sins of the father upon the children and
upon the children’s children down to the third and fourth generation, so presumably,
the parents sinned, God chose to visit that sin upon the child and the child was born
blind. So that part of the question is understandable but that’s not the entirety of
the question.
The question is not only did the man’s parents sin that he was born
blind, but the question includes; "Did this man sin, and because he sinned he was
then born blind?" That is the strange part of the question. For how could he have
sinned first, and then have been born blind? Since Judaism does not hold to the concept of
re-incarnation, that is not where this question is coming from. But the question does
reflect the Pharisaism which his disciples were brought up in. The teaching of the
Pharisees is that a person that was born blind , was born blind because of a specific sin,
either committed by the parents or by the individual. Again, how could the individual sin
and then be born blind?
In Pharisaism, when a child is conceived he has two inclinations. These
are referred to as the yetser hatov (?) and the yetser harow (?) or the good inclination
or the evil inclination. The picture is that right from conception the two inclinations
are struggling with each other for control. For most people that are born the good
inclination has consistently won out. There are a few exceptions. It could be that in the
case of one individual the evil inclination had taken over, and in an act of animosity the
foetus kicked the mother in the womb, and because of that act of animosity the child is
born blind.
It is this question that is reflecting that old Pharisaic teaching. And
because being born blind was due to a specific sin like this, there is no hope of healing
someone that was born blind unless the Messiah comes.
And so we come to the third of the Messianic miracles; healing someone
that was born blind, as over against healing someone that simply went blind. Healing
someone who went blind is not a Messianic miracle but healing someone who was born
blind is. That would help to explain why the Jewish people react the way they do in what
happens in this context.
So having spelt out or corrected their theology that neither he nor the
parents sinned, but God so allowed for the child to be born blind in order to glorify him
in the action about to occur, he then proceeds to heal, but he does it in a different way
than he normally does. What he does is make some mud out of spittle and he smears the mud
in the eyes of the one born blind, and keep in mind that it is the Sabbath day.
Interestingly enough, the Mishnah clearly spells out ways that it is forbidden to be
healed on the Sabbath day. One of the ways the Mishnah says you are not allowed to heal a
blind man on the Sabbath day is by smearing mud on his eyes. And Jesus uses a method of
healing that is specifically forbidden by the Mishnah itself.
He isn’t healed at that point but he is told to go down to the pool
of Siloam and when he washes the mud off his eyes, only then will he see. And so one thing
to note is that he is away from Jesus when he finally has sight, and he hasn’t really
seen what Jesus looked like.
Now why to Siloam? There are a number of pools in Jerusalem and for a
blind man to trek his way down to Siloam was not the best way or the best pool to send him
to , because he would have to go down a rather steep slope into the Kidron Valley to get
to this particular pool. For a blind man it would have been easier to send him to another
pool. Why this one? There are a couple of reasons. One of these is a play upon words over
the word "sent". In verse 4 Jesus said; "We must work the works of him that
sent me." And in verse 7 and eight we are told that the meaning of the name Siloam is
‘to be sent’. The play upon words is that he was sent by God to do the works of
the Father, and here is one of the works the Father had assigned him to do.
But there is another reason, a secondary reason why, here. It happens to
be in the context of the Feast of Tabernacles. Now of all the pools in Jerusalem, Siloam
was the most important pool for that particular occasion. Because during the observance of
the Feast of Tabernacles, one of the ceremonies was that the priests would make a
procession from the temple compound, down to the pool of Siloam, they would fill jugs or
pitchers of water, trek back up the temple mount and ascend the 15 steps and sing the
songs of ascent accordingly, (Psalms 120 to 134), and then they would go into where the
laver was, pour out the water into the laver and at that point there would be great
rejoicing. The Mishnah says, "he who has not seen rejoicing at the pouring out of the
water, has not seen rejoicing in all of his life." Because of the role that the Pool
of Siloam plays during this festival, it would be the most crowded of all the pools of
Jerusalem. And so the third Messianic miracle is like the others, it is a very public
miracle that requires some type of a reaction.
And so the man goes down to the Pool of Siloam, it is very crowded on this
occasion, he washes the mud off and he sees. And that creates a dilemma for the Jewish
audience that has just observed it. On the one hand, they realise that a Messianic miracle
has just been performed, the whole concept of someone born blind now seeing was something
they never expected to see in their lifetime. On the other hand, it was done on the
Sabbath day, done in the way which Jewish law clearly forbade at that time.
That leads to the second part of the passage verse 13 to 17, where we have
the first interrogation of the man born blind. The Jewish people do what is natural to
them in verse 13, they bring the man to the Pharisees for them to explain this seeming
contradiction in their theology. So the begin to question and interrogate the man born
blind but as they are not getting anywhere, someone suggests that perhaps he wasn’t
really born blind. Perhaps it isn’t true that he was born blind and there is a flaw
somewhere.
So to validate whether he was or wasn’t born blind, we come to verse
18 through 22 where they interrogate the man’s parents. While they interrogate the
man’s parent, the parents affirm two things. Number one, this man is their son. They
have known him for a long time now, in fact since he was born. And because they have known
him since he was born, they can secondly affirm he really was born blind. But that
doesn’t help their case. So when they try to ask, "How come he now sees?",
the parents venture no guess work because in verse 22 it has been decreed that any Jewish
person who will own Jesus to be the Messiah is to be excommunicated from the Synagogue.
So since interrogating the parents has not helped their case, they now go
back to the man born blind, and so we come to the fourth division of the chapter, verses
23 to 34 where we have the second interrogation of the man born blind. It this point
things get somewhat illogical and somewhat humorous. For in verse 23; "So they called
the second time the man that was born blind, and said unto him, ‘Give glory to God,
we know that this man is a sinner."
For people famous for logic, this is a rather illogical statement. When
was the last time you said; "Praise the Lord, that guy there is a sinner." Or
"Praise the Lord, that one there robbed a bank" or "Praise the Lord, that
one there murdered his wife"? We praise God for many things but to praise God for
other people’s sins isn’t one of them. But this is what they are doing here.
They say; "Give glory to God. We know that Jesus is a sinner." That’s not a
very logical statement.
But at this point the man born blind is able to remain somewhat tactful.
He responds to them in verse 25; "Whether he be a sinner I know not, but one thing I
know that whereas I was blind, now I see." Now keep in mind that he is not merely
making a statement here, but issuing a challenge. Basically he is saying this. "What
Jesus is, I am not sure. But I am sure about this. I was born blind. And based upon what
you have taught me I was never to see in my life time unless the Messiah came in my life
time, now a man named Jesus of Nazareth healed me of my blindness. Based upon what you
have taught me we should say that he is the Messiah, but now you say; "Give glory to
God. He is a sinner." Would you please explain?
So they explain or at least try. In verse 26; "They therefore said
unto him, ‘What did he do to thee? How opened thee thine eyes?’" Their
response is, "OK once again, from the top. Explain everything. Relate the story in
detail. Don’t leave anything out." As if retelling the story is going to help
the situation.
At this point the man loses his ability to remain tactful. And in verse 27
he answers; "I told you even now and you did not hear. Why would you hear it again?
Would you also become his disciples?" This was not a smart thing to say to Pharisees
at this point. "You want to here the story so you too can become his disciples?"
And they respond in kind in verse 28; "They reviled him and said; "Thou art his
disciple, we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken unto Moses, but as for
this man, we do know whence he is." Their response to him is, "you want to be a
disciple of Jesus you go ahead, we will stay with Moses. We know God spoke with Moses, but
we don’t know where this man is coming from."
Well if the man was less tactful earlier, he blows it next. Because he
says to them in verse 30; "Why here is a marvel that ye know not whence he is, yet he
opened mine eyes." Verse 32; "Since the world began there was never heard that
anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind." There are of course records of people
who went blind, but never is there a record of one healed who was born blind. Well that
ends the conversation. In verse 34 they respond; "Thou was altogether born in sins
and doest thou teach us?" and they cast him out. Because he was born blind he was
therefore blind due to a specific sin from their theological perspective, and they cast
him out. This casting out in verse 34 is the same as in verse 22 and means that he was
excommunicated from the synagogue.
Now the fifth and final section is verses 25 to 41 where we have the
spiritual healing of the man born blind. Remember he had not seen Jesus because Jesus had
sent him away to the Pool before his eyesight came.
So Jesus meets him and says in verse 36; "Doest thou believe in the
Son of God?" and he answered him and said, "Who is he Lord that I may believe on
him?" Jesus said unto him; "Thou has both seen him, he it is that speaks with
thee." He said "Lord, I believe and worshiped him." At this point the man
owns Jesus as his Messiah and is spiritually healed of spiritual blindness just as earlier
he had been healed of his physical blindness.
In response to the first Messianic miracle, the healing of a leper,
that’s when the leaders first began coming together to investigate his Messianic
claims. In response to the second Messianic miracle, the casting out of a dumb demon, they
rejected his Messianic claims on the ground of (his) being demon possessed. In response to
the third Messianic miracle, the healing of the man born blind, the reaction was against
the followers of Jesus. Any Jewish person who will own Jesus as the Messiah is to be
excommunicated. And for the most part, this edict has stood to this day.
16.
Lazarus and the Rich Man Luke Chapter 16.
The events of Luke 16 record another major conflict with the Pharisees,
this time over the proper attitude towards the material things of this world. Again there
was a sharp disagreement between the way the Pharisees viewed it and the way Jesus viewed
it. It’s important to note that Chronologically speaking, the events of Luke 16 take
place shortly before Jesus does the first of the signs of Jonah, the resurrection of
Lazarus. The conflict with the Pharisees in verses 1 through 18 of chapter 16 here is
concluded with a story in verses 19 through 31, the story of the rich man and Lazarus.
In Pharisaic Judaism, wealth has become a sign of divine favour. That
explains the disciples’ dilemma in a different incident that when Jesus said;
"How hard it is for them who are rich to enter into the kingdom.". The disciples
were concerned and said, "Well if the rich can’t make it, what chance do we
have?"
Because in Pharisaic theology wealth had become a sign of divine favour,
those who were wealthy were certainly guaranteed special places in the kingdom, but as for
the others, well you couldn’t be too sure.
In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, what would have been anticipated
by that theology does not take place but the exact opposite is true. Because when the
beggar man Lazarus, the poor man Lazarus dies, he goes to Abraham’s bosom, while the
rich man ends up in hell. So without getting into the details of where this place is, it
is obvious at least in this story, that between the place where Lazarus and Abraham were,
and the place where the rich man was, there was a separation of a great gulf. They could
see each other, and they could converse with each other.
Also remember that in Pharisaic theology, all Israel has a share in the
age to come, and anyone who was born a Jew would have automatic rights into the kingdom
and into heaven. This story helps to dispel that theology as well as throughout the
conversation between Abraham and the rich man the rich man refers to Abraham as
"father" and Abraham refers to the rich man as "son". But that father
/ son physical relationship as Jews did not help the rich man one bit because of his lack
of faith.
When the rich man finally realises in the course of his conversation with
Abraham, that there is no possibility of Lazarus coming over to give even a drop of water
to give him some relief from the fire, he then gets concerned about his brothers who are
still living. In verse 37 he said; "I pray thee therefore father that thou would send
him to my father’s house where I have five brothers, that he may testify unto them
lest they also come into this place of torment."
The specific request made by the rich man to Abraham, is to allow Lazarus
to be resurrected from the dead, so that Lazarus could then warn the five brothers lest
they too end up in the same place. Abraham’s response is in verse 29; "Abraham
said, they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." The point of
Abraham’s words is that it is not necessary for Lazarus to be resurrected from the
dead. The truth is available. These five brothers have the Scriptures. They have Moses and
the prophets. If they will read, if they will learn, if they will obey, then they will not
have to fear coming into the same place.
However in verse 30 the rich man answers. "Nay father Abraham, but if
one go to them from the dead, they will repent." The rich man’s answer is, No!
The Bible is not enough. It is insufficient. What my brothers need is a miracle of
resurrection. If they can see this miracle of resurrection, if they can see Lazarus
resurrected from the dead, that will certainly convinve them once and for all. Merely
reading the Scriptures won’t do it.
But again Abraham negates the response. In verse 31 Abraham says to him;
"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rise
from the dead." The clear implication of the statement is that if the Scriptures, if
the written word of God is not believed, signs will not help either. If they are not
willing to believe Moses and the prophets, the resurrection of Lazarus will not help his
brothers one iota.
Again it’s no accident that this story takes place just before a man
named Lazarus would be resurrected. It will not be the same Lazaraus, but the name is the
same. And the point Jesus is teaching us is, that when the first sign of Jonah is given to
the nation, and a man named Lazarus is resurrected, that first sign of Jonah will be
rejected. It will be rejected because they did not believe what Moses and the prophets
wrote.
17. The Resurrection of Lazarus. John Chapter 11.
In John chapter 11 we are given 44 verses giving us the details of the
resurrection of Lazarus. Lazarus was not the first person that Jesus raised from the dead.
But all the other resurrection stories are covered in two to four verses they are
witnessed by only a few, and the few who witnessed those other resurrections are then told
to tell no-one about it. In sharp contrast to all the other cases of resurrection, in the
case of Lazarus, we are given a lot of detail, 44 verses of detail. Rather than being
witnessed by only a few, this one is witnessed by the many, by the multitudes.
What makes the resurrection of Lazarus more unique than the others?
It’s unique in that this is the sign Jesus said he was going to give to Israel, the
sign of resurrection. When this is given, they will need to respond. If we understand the
role that the resurrection of Lazarus plays in the relationship between Jesus and Israel
as Israel’s Messiah, we will better understand why things happen as they do
throughout the account.
This chapter can be divided into four sections. In verses 1 through 16 we
have the first section which has to do with the death of Lazarus. In verses 1 through 5 a
message comes to Jesus informing him that his friend Lazarus is fatally ill. The obvious
purpose of the message sent by Mary and Martha the two sisters of Lazarus is to get Jesus
to come quickly to Bethany before Lazarus dies so that he could heal Lazarus. That was the
intent of the message. You would expect to read that as soon as Jesus heard that Lazarus
was sick, he immediately departed for Bethany. From where he was at this point, it was
only a one day journey to Bethany.
But verse 6 reads the exact opposite of what you would have expected.
"When therefore, (a good rule of interpreting Scripture is that when you read the
word ‘therefore’ find out what it is there for, because it is a word that is a
logical connection building a case either on the basis of what precedes or what follows.
"When therefore he heard that he was sick, he abode at that time two days in the
place where he was." For the very reason that he heard Lazarus was sick, for that
very reason he went no-where. He stayed put. He is literally waiting for Lazarus to die.
When he finally does begin trekking towards Bethany, what should have taken him only one
day, took him four days, so that by the time he arrived in Bethany, Lazarus has been dead
four days, and that’s going to be significant shortly. At the end of verse 16,
Lazarus is dead, and Jesus slowly moves towards Bethany.
The second section verses 17 through 27, we have the discussion between
Jesus and Martha. Basically Martha scolds Jesus for not coming when he was first called,
she realises he has delayed coming for one reason or another. And in her conversation it
is obvious she recognises the authority of Jesus and the power of Jesus before death, but
not yet over death.
The third section verses 28-32 he has a similar confrontation with Mary.
And like Martha, Mary also recognises the authority and power of Jesus before death but
not yet over death.
But then we come to the fourth division (33-44) Jesus and Lazarus, the
resurrection of Lazarus. It is pointed out to Jesus that to remove the stone at this point
is going to be a bad thing to do because Lazarus has been dead four days. And that is
significant from a Jewish frame of reference. The common teaching of the Pharisaism of
that day was that when a man died, the spirit of the man hovered over the body for three
days. During those three days of hovering, there was always a possibility of
resuscitation. But at the end of the third day, the spirit descends down to
‘Sheol’ from then on a resuscitation is then impossible, only a miracle of
resurrection. And Jesus sets the stage in such a way that the Pharisees, when they do
respond to this (and respond they will), they won’t be able to simply explain this
away by mere resuscitation.
Also note verse 42 and note for whom Lazarus was really being raised.
"Father, I thank thee that thou hearest me, I know that thou hearest me always, but
because of the multitude that stands around I said it, that they may believe that thou
didst send me." Surely this miracle is for the benefit of the masses, for the benefit
of the multitudes. It’s not merely a favour for Mary and Martha. And when this sign
is given, it will have to be responded to. In verse 44 Lazarus is resurrected, and the
first sign of Jonah is given.
In the next segment we begin to see the response. In verses 45 and 46
there are two types of responses. "Many therefore of the Jews who came to Mary and
beheld that which he did believed on him, but some of them went away to the Pharisees and
told them the things which Jesus had done." On one hand many individual Jews respond
correctly, and exercised faith. But many others were still belabouring under the same
leadership complex, and merely report what has occurred to the Pharisees, looking for an
explanation from them. And because the Pharisees in particular know that this is the sign
Jesus promised to give them, they must respond.
In verse 47 the Sanhedrin comes together. "The Chief Priests
therefore and the Pharisees gathered the council and said; ‘What do we, for this man
does many signs? If we let him thus alone all men will believe on him, and the Romans will
come and take away both our place and our nation. But a certain one of them Caiaphas being
High Priest that year said unto them; ‘You know nothing at all, nor do you take into
account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people and the whole
nation perish not." Verse 53, "So from that day forth they took council that
they might put him to death."
The Sanhedrin does meet. But in the course of their deliberations they
carry out one step further the rejection which has already occurred. Back in Matthew 12
they rejected his claims on the basis of his being demon possessed. But here they go a
step further and sentence him to death.. And with this action, the first sign of Jonah is
rejected.
Now what happens next chronologically is given in Luke 17.
18.
Ten Lepers Healed. Luke Chapter 17.
In Luke chapter 17, we are about to see an example of humour on the part
of Jesus, divine humour or Jewish humour, (they’re probably the same anyway!) and
chronologically as harmonies will show, what happens next follows the rejection by the
Sanhedrin of the first sign of Jonah. Luke 17 verse 11; "It came to pass as they were
on their way to Jerusalem, that he was passing through the midst of Samaria in Galilee and
as he entered into a certain village there met him 10 men that were lepers, which stood
afar off and they lifted up their voice and said ‘Jesus, have mercy on us."
In this account, Jesus is faced not by one leper, but by ten lepers.
Remember when Jesus healed one leper, and sent him to the priesthood, that’s when
they began their intense investigation of his Messianic claims. That’s when the whole
Jewish leadership came to Capernaum to listen to what he claimed to be. But this time, it
is not one leper but ten lepers and notice what Jesus tells them to do in verse 14.
"And when he saw them, he said unto them, ‘Go and show yourselves unto the
priests.’"
Just after they have rejected his Messianic claim, right after that, Jesus
sends ten healed lepers to them. All of a sudden ten lepers are standing there saying;
"We were lepers, now we are healed of our leprosy." On that day ten times over
they will have to offer up two birds. For the next seven days ten times over they will
have to investigate their claim to have been lepers and they will discover three things
again.
Number one, all ten of these men really were lepers. Secondly all ten of
these men really were healed of their leprosy. And thirdly, worse for them, all ten of
these were healed by Jesus of Nazareth. Suddenly they have in front of them, a tenfold
witness to the Messianic claims of Jesus of Nazareth. I can almost see Jesus chuckling as
he sends these ten healed lepers to the priests, that have just deliberated his rejection.
From this point on, slowly he begins his trek towards Jerusalem towards his final week.
19. The Triumphal Entry Luke Chapter 19
One event that all four gospels record in some detail is what has come to
be known as "The Triumphal Entry". The triumphal entry is sometimes interpreted
to be Christ’s final offer to Israel as Israel’s king. This is said to be his
final offer. I do not think that is the correct way of seeing the triumphal entry, rather
it should be seen in a different perspective. In the light of what happened in Matthew 12
with the unpardonable sin, I don’t believe he was re-offering the kingdom in his
triumphal entry.
The date of his triumphal entry in the Jewish calendar was the 10th
of Nisan. According to the Mosaic Law on the 10th of Nisan, the Passover lamb
was to be set aside. And from the 10th until the 14th day of the
month, the lamb was to be tested to make sure that the lamb was without spot and without
blemish. Rather than viewing the triumphal entry as a point of time that he was offering
himself as Israel’s king again, it should be view in the context of the Passover,
that he was setting himself aside as the Lamb of God.
On this day he was being set aside to be tested and proven to be without
spot and without blemish.
Now as he is riding into Jerusalem, he is greeted by thousands and
thousands of Jewish people crying out as in verse 38; "Blessed is the king that
cometh in the name of the Lord." Now it is obvious that the masses that see him
riding across toward Jerusalem are expecting him to set up his kingdom. In fact their
actions like taking down the palm branches and laying them before him are actions which
are usually done at the Feast of Tabernacles not at the Feast of Passover. It is evident
that they are expecting the Feast of Tabernacles to be fulfilled on this occasion. Because
they knew from Zechariah 14 that the Feast of Tabernacles is to be fulfilled by the
Messianic kingdom and they are expecting the Messianic kingdom to be set up at this time.
And so, by their thousands they are proclaiming him to be the Messiah in the very
statement. "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" is a Messianic
reading. Because the Rabbis had been teaching before this time, that when Messiah comes,
he must be greeted with these words for they come out of a Messianic Psalm in the Old
Testament, Psalm 118:26.
So when they apply these words to Jesus they are proclaiming him by their
thousands to be Israel’s Messiah, and are expecting him to fulfil the Feast of
Tabernacles at this point and set up the kingdom. They had not yet realised that Passover
must be fulfilled prior to Tabernacles, and Passover is fulfilled by the death of the
Messiah.
But all of these proclamations by the thousands of Jesus to be the Messiah
may cause us to think that conditions may now change. The unpardonable sin has already
been committed, and because of its very unpardonableness, nothing can change the judgement
that now hangs over that generation. Look at verse 41 and notice that in the context of
many proclaiming him to be Messiah, the words of Jesus remain words of judgement. Verse 41
of Luke 19; "When he drew drew nigh he saw the city and wept over it saying, ‘If
thou hadst known even thou in this thy day the things which belong unto thy peace. But now
they are hid from thine eyes. For the day will come upon thee when thine enemies shall
cast a bank about thee and compass thee round and keep thee in on every side, and shall
dash thee to the ground and thy children within thee, and they will not leave in thee one
stone upon another because you did not know the time of thy visitation."
No amount of Hosanna’s and proclamations of Messiahship at this point
can remove the judgement for the unpardonable sin. And because of its unpardonableness,
Jerusalem is still under divine judgement. Forty years later these words were literally
fulfilled. But with the riding into Jerusalem on this occasion you have the setting aside
of the Lamb of God to be tested to see if he was without spot and without blemish. And
indeed as the next chapters in Matthew show, Matthew chapters 21 and 22 particularly,
Jesus was being tested. He was being tested by the Pharisees, by the Sadducees, by the
scribes and by the Herodians. They came attacking him one after another to try to find
some fault, some spot, some blemish. In the end all his answers silenced them and by his
answers he showed them that he was the Lamb of God indeed without spot and without
blemish. Having proven himself to be without spot and without blemish, he now turns upon
the leadership of Israel. We next turn then to Matthew chapter 23.
20.
The Seven Woes Matthew Chapter 23.
Matthew chapter 23 has but one theme throughout its entire 39 verses. That
one theme is, the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees the leadership of Israel of
that day. With this denunciation he closes his public ministry. After this chapter he is
alone with his disciples alone to the Passover, on to his arrest, his trial, his death,
and his resurrection. This chapter ends his public ministry. He began his public ministry
on a Passover, he ends it on a Passover. He began in the temple compound, he concludes in
the temple compound. Very fitting indeed!
There are three divisions in this particular chapter. In the first
division verses 1-12 he speaks to the disciples about the Pharisees. And speaking
about the Pharisees he says five things. First of all in verse 3 they are characterised by
hypocrisy. Hypocrisy summarises Pharisaism. Secondly in verse 4, they are guilty of making
the Mishnah, a heavy burden upon others, for they find ways to get around it. Thirdly in
verse 5 through 7, they are guilty of being self-righteous and self-seeking.
He brings out certain examples where they did take a Mosaic Law but then
took it out of proportion. For example in verse 5, "For all their works they do to be
seen of men for they make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their
garments. The phylacteries and the borders of the garments were both commanded by Moses;
Moses commanded these things to be done. But the Pharisees made the boxes unusually large
and the borders or strands very long for the purpose of appearing to be very orthodox to
be seen of men. And they used what Moses commanded in a way that Moses didn’t intend.
To show off their own self-righteousness and their own self-seeking.
Fourthly verses 8-12, the disciples of Jesus were to be characterised by
opposite tendencies. They were not to seek man exalting titles such as ‘Rabbi’
and ‘Father’ and ‘Master’. In the body they are all co-equal and they
are to live a life of humility, not a life of showiness.
The fifth thing he says about the Pharisees is not in Matthew’s
account, it’s over in Mark 12:40, but the fifth thing he says about the Pharisees is
that they are guilty of prostituting their religion in that by long prayers they hide
their covetousness and their covetousness is seen by their foreclosure on the homes of
widows. Under the Mosaic Law, widows were under special protection, and the Mosaic Law
looked out for those who were widows. But Pharisees, rather than playing out the intent of
the Law, would foreclose on the homes of widows. But they never did it without praying
about it first. And by so doing they were guilty of prostituting their religion.
The second part of Matthew 23, is verses 13 to 36. This time he speaks
directly to the scribes and Pharisees. He condemns them for various sins. He pronounces
seven woes upon the Pharisees. While these woes are for various sins they form a circle
with the first and seventh woe dealing with the same sin.
The first woe is in verse 13. "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites, because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for ye enter not in
yourselves, neither suffer ye them who are entering in to enter." With the first woe
the Pharisees are condemned because number one, they are rejecting his Messianic claims,
but secondly they are leading the nation to reject his Messianic claims as well.
The second woe is in verse 15. The second is for turning proselytes into
worse legalists than they were. They indeed had a missionary work among the Gentiles, for
when they converted them it wasn’t merely to the worship of the God of Israel, it was
to specifically Pharisaism, and as a result, often these became more extreme legalists
than often the Pharisees themselves were.
The third woe is in verse 16-22 and that is for switching priorities, in
that they gave priority to the consecrated, rather than to the consecrator.
He gives us two examples. One example is the statement in verse 16, "Whosoever shall
swear by the temple it is nothing, whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is
a debtor." That was the teaching, that if you made a commitment on the basis of the
temple, you didn’t have to keep your commitment. But if you made your commitment on
the basis of the gold of the temple, then you have to keep it. But what makes the gold of
the temple more significant than gold elsewhere? It is the temple itself. It is the temple
that consecrates the gold not the temple by the gold. So in this system they gave priority
to that which was consecrated, (the gold) rather than the consecrator, the temple.
The second example has to do with the gift and the altar. If you swear by
the altar it is nothing. But if you swear by the gift on the altar, you have to keep that
which you have committed yourself to do. But again, what makes the gift significant? It is
because of where it is, on the altar. The gift doesn’t sanctify the altar, the altar
sanctifies the gift. Here again they switched priorities. Priority was given to that which
was consecrated, rather than to the consecrator.
The fourth woe is in verses 23-24, for camping (?) on the minors while
ignoring the majors. And they are very careful to give a tenth of the very smallest of
seed. They are very careful to keep the external demands of the Law, and Jesus says these
things you ought to have done. God does expect us to keep the external demands of the
commandments he gives us. But they ignored the weightier matters of the Law, judgement,
mercy and faith. The internal demands of the Law were not kept.
The fifth woe is in verse 25-26. That is to be concerned with externals
and ignoring internals. In that way they were like white-washed tombs. They still practice
this in Israel. A tomb is given a fresh coat of white paint that can be easily seen, so a
Levite will not accidentally walk on it and become ceremonially defiled. And while on the
outside these white-washed tombs look very nice and pretty, within they are full of dead
men’s bones. And that which is a dead man’s bone defiles. That’s what the
Pharisees were like. Outwardly they were very spiritual and religious looking, but
inwardly, they were spiritually defiled. Now between the third, fourth and fifth woe, five
different times he refers to the Pharisees as being blind. The first time in verse 16;
"Woe unto you, ye blind guides", secondly, in verse 17; "Ye fools and
blind", thirdly in verse 19, "Ye blind", fourthly in verse 24, "Ye
blind guides", and fifthly in verse 26 "Thou blind Pharisees." Five times
he labels them for what they are; blind.
The sixth woe is in verse 27-28 and that is for their hypocrisy.
But then comes the seventh woe in verse 29-36 which is an expansion of the
first woe in verse 13. In verse 29; "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,
for you build the sepulchres of the prophets and garnish the tombs of the righteous and
say, ‘If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers
with them, in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye are witness unto yourselves that ye
are the sons of them that slew the prophets."
"Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye
offspring of vipers. How shall you escape the judgement of hell." "Therefore
behold I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes. Some of them you shall kill and
crucify. Some of them shall you scourge in your synagogues and persecute them from city to
city. That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from the blood of
Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachia whom you slew between the
temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this
generation." (There’s those two words again.)
In this seventh woe Jesus says that this generation will not only be held
accountable for the rejection of his Messiahship, but more so that they will be held
accountable for all of the blood of the Old Testament prophets. The reason being that
everything the prophets were going to say about the coming of the Messiah had by this time
been said.
The Old Testament had been completed for well over four and a half
centuries. Furthermore, they had the testimony of John the Baptist, announcing the soon
coming of the king, and furthermore, they had the ministry of Jesus who didn’t merely
claim Messiahship, but authenticated those claims with miracles and signs and wonders
including the very miracles they themselves had labelled ‘Messianic miracles’.
Yet in spite of all this evidence they rejected his claims. Now Jesus
says, "This generation will be held accountable for the whole body of revealed
written truth. One thing to bear in mind, is that when Jesus used the Old Testament, he
used it in the order of the Jewish Bible, not in the order of the modern Christian Bible.
The number of books in the Jewish and Christian Old Testaments is the same, but the order
of books is not the same.
In the Jewish order the first book is the same, Genesis, but the last book
is not Malachi as in the Christian Bibles, the last book in the Jewish order is 2nd
Chronicles.
In verse 35 Jesus names two men. Abel, found in Genesis, and Zechariah
found in 2nd Chronicles the last book Chronicles, the last book in the Jewish
order. By naming these two men what he is saying is that they will be held accountable for
everything from Genesis to 2nd Chronicles. A figure of speech meaning, the
whole body of revealed, written truth, much as we use a similar figure of speech today
when we say from Genesis to Revelation. The whole body of revealed, written truth. This
generation, guilty of the unpardonable sin, would now be held accountable for the whole
body of truth. And again, that special emphasis on ‘that generation".
A few days after these words were spoken came the second sign of Jonah
which was the resurrection of Jesus. The second sign of Jonah however, was rejected in the
first seven chapters of the book of Acts. The stoning of Stephen in Acts chapter 7 marks
the Sanhedrin’s rejection of that second sign of Jonah. That is why in the framework
of the book of Acts, only is it in chapter 8 that the gospel goes out into the non-Jewish
world. Until the second sign of Jonah was rejected, it stayed within the framework of the
Jewish world alone.
The book of Hebrews can be better understood if we keep in mind that it
was written in the context of the unpardonable sin, and the judgement of that generation.
The book of Hebrews was written to a group of Jewish believers, undergoing some severe
persecution, and because of this persecution was seriously considering going back into
Judaism.
And the writer of Hebrews writes to them to warn them against doing so,
because if they go back into Judaism now, they will place themselves under the judgement
of 70 AD and will die a terrible physical death. The only way they can hope to escape that
judgement of 70 AD, the judgement for the unpardonable sin, is to make the break from
Judaism once and for all complete. For Jews then as for Jews today that break comes by
means of water baptism. Only by making that break could they hope to escape that physical
judgement of 70 AD .
From Hebrews we don’t know how they responded, but fortunately we
have three ancient writings which if we pool the information together, we do know how they
responded. The first source is Josephus, a Jewish writer of the first century, an
eyewitness of the events of 70 AD, the second man was Hagiosyppius who was a Jewish
believer of the second century, and then came Usebius a Gentile Christian of the fourth
century. By pooling the material on what they say happened in so far as Jewish believers
are concerned, we are told that the Jewish believers did obey the book of Hebrews, and
made their break from Judaism complete.
And when the Jews revolted against Rome in 66 AD, the entire Jewish
Christian community numbering in their thousands, left Jerusalem, left Israel, crossed to
the east side of the Jordan River, and waited the war out on the east side of the Jordan
in the town called Pella just south of the sea of Galilee on the east side of the river.
Four years later the war ended. One million one hundred thousand Jews were
killed in that Roman conflict. But we are told by these writers that not one single Jewish
believer lost his life, because of his obedience to the letter to the Hebrews.
Certain epistles are uniquely Jewish Christian epistles aimed at Jewish
believers. Often what is said needs to be understood in the context of this judgement
hanging over that generation, the unpardonable sin. This includes not only Hebrews, but
James, 1st and 2nd Peter, and Jude. These epistles are better
understood if they are studied in the context of that event hanging over that generation.
There’s a third segment to chapter 23 that we should not miss. Verses
37, 38 and 39, still addressing the leadership of Israel, he closes it with a lament.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who killeth the prophets, and stoneth them which are sent
unto her. How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her
chickens under her wings but ye would not. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate,
for I say unto you, you shall not see me henceforth, until ye shall say, ‘Blessed is
He that cometh in the name of the Lord.’"
In verse 37 the Messiah summarises the three and a half year ministry over
Israel, how often he longed to spread his hands out and to give the Holy City the
messianic protection predicted by the prophets of old. But he couldn’t do that
because they ‘would not’ or more literally, ‘they will did not’, when
they rejected his claims. So in verse 38, their house, their temple, is destined to now
lie desolate.
But verse 39 is very important. He says to them, their leaders, "You
will not see me again, until you shall say; "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of
the Lord." Again, from a Jewish frame of reference this is a Messianic reading. They
will not say this of him unless they own him to be their Messiah.
His public ministry ends by laying down the condition, the pre-requisite
to his return. In that just as the Jewish leaders years ago led the nation to reject his
Messiahship, a day must come when the leaders will lead the nation to acceptance of the
Messiahship of Jesus. That is the basis of the second coming. That is the pre-condition.
Until there is a national salvation of Israel, there will be no second coming whatsoever.
Now we cannot go into the circumstance which will bring all this about
because that goes beyond our theme for the present, but we know from other prophecies that
there will be a national regeneration, a national salvation. It is described in places
like Leviticus 26 verse 40-42, Jeremiah 3 verse 12-18, Zechariah 12 verses 10 to chapter
13 verse 1, Hosea 5:15 through 6:3, and many others. Essentially they inform us that in
the last three days of the Tribulation, the last three days preceding the second coming,
all Israel will be saved indeed, and that will bring about the return of the Lord.
Part of the role that will bring about Israel’s salvation will be the
third sign of Jonah. In Zechariah chapter 4, Zechariah sees a vision. In this vision he
sees a seven-branched Menorah, a lampstand. On each side of the lampstand is an olive
tree. From each olive tree there is a pipe emptying oil into a bowl that’s over the
Menorah or lampstand. From the bowl containing the oil, the oil is supplied to each
individual lamp through seven ducts, seven to each lamp or 49 ducts. What Zechariah is
seeing in chapter 4 is a picture of a regenerated nation of Israel, a saved nation
fulfilling its calling to be the light to the Gentiles. Most of what’s in this vision
he already understands, he knows what the Menorah represents and all that. What he
doesn’t understand is what the two olive trees represent.
Yet the olive tree is the source of the oil, and the oil in Scripture is
the symbol of the Holy Spirit and in verse 6 he even tells us as much; "Not by might
nor by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord of Hosts." So he sees Israel as a saved
spiritual nation, being the light of the Gentiles, and the one common theme that runs
throughout the vision is the theme of oil, the Spirit, that originates with the olive
trees and he doesn’t know what the olive tree represents. He knows what the Menorah
is, he knows what the oil is, but he doesn’t know what the trees represent.
So from verses 11 through 14 of Zechariah 4 he raises the question;
"What are these two olive trees that are the source of the oil?" In verse 14 the
angel gives him a rather cryptic, hidden answer. He simply says; "These are the two
anointed ones that stand before the lord of the whole earth." That’s what he
says . How much Zechariah understood we don’t know. Surely if that’s all we had
we wouldn’t make a lot of sense from that alone. But years later, the book of
Revelation is written, and chapter 11 verses 3 onwards, explains the vision in more
detail. In chapter 11 we are told that during the Tribulation there will be two prophets,
two witnesses in Jerusalem, that will be proclaiming the word, Though during the lifetime
of their ministry, their message will be rejected.
At some point, while they are ministering, after three and a half years of
ministry, they are killed. Their bodies lie unburied in the streets of Jerusalem for three
and a half days. Everybody is viewing these bodies and celebrating their death because
they suffered much at their hands. But after three and a half days, God resurrects these
two witnesses and in the sight of all they ascend into heaven.
Several things happen as a result of the resurrection and ascent of the
two witnesses. Number one there is a great earthquake. Secondly one tenth of Jerusalem is
destroyed. Thirdly seven thousand residents are killed. Then comes a fourth result . It
says that the remaining residents of Jerusalem, give glory to the God of Israel. As a
result of the resurrection of the two witnesses in Israel, that will result in the
salvation of the Jewish people in Jerusalem. That begins a process at the end of the
Tribulation the last three days, that results in the rest of Israel being saved. So while
they rejected the first and second sign of Jonah, praise the Lord, they will accept the
third sign of Jonah.
Now going back to the passage in Matthew 23 and the basis for the second
coming, if we clearly comprehend the basis of the second coming, we will comprehend three
other things important by way of application
The first thing we will clearly understand is why Satan has had this
perpetual war against the Jews throughout Jewish history, and why he has been so stubborn
about trying to annihilate the Jews once and for all. Satan knows that once Jesus returns,
his career is over with. He also knows that Jesus will not come back, until the Jews ask
him to come back. So if he can ever succeed in wiping out the Jews once and for all,
before they have a chance to plead for Messiah to return, there will be no second coming,
and Satan’s career will be safe for eternity.
That’s why things like the Crusades occurred, that’s why the
Nazi Holocaust occurred, that’s why Revelation 12 verses 12 and 13 state, that once
he is in the Tribulation, he knows his time is short, and knowing his time is short, he
spends all of his energies in trying to wipe out the Jews once and for all. He must
destroy the Jews to keep Christ from returning.
That is why anti-Semitism in any of its forms, active or passive, whether
it is social, political, religious, national, economic is part of the Satanic weapon to
wipe out the Jews. One reason why believers must always stand against any form of
anti-Semitism, lest they inadvertently aid the Satanic programme of trying to keep Jesus
from returning.
The second thing by way of application is the importance of Jewish
evangelism in the light of all this. The Bible does clearly spell out things that will
come and the Bible does teach that a day is coming when all Israel will be saved, but
never apart from the good news of the Gospel. Even for them faith will come by hearing and
hearing by the word of God. Our major goal should be to win Jewish people to Messiah now
so that they can come to know the God of Israel by knowing the Jewish Messiah. We should
also be well aware of Romans 11. "If blindness in part hath befallen Israel, until
the fullness of the Gentiles be come in…". We recognise that the majority of
Israel will reject our message.
There is a second goal in the work of Jewish evangelism, and that is to
give the Jewish people a knowledge of what the Gospel is. For while Jews hear many things
about Jesus much of it is warped and wrong, and few Jews really understand the content of
the Gospel or know what the issues are. So we should give the Jewish people a knowledge of
what the Gospel is and to know what the issues are. Depending on God’s timetable and
God’s program it may very well be that the seeds we plant through evangelism now
might be rejected for now, but in their mind they understand the issues. As God’s
timetable and program develops many of these who have heard the Gospel now might accept it
later and be among the Jewish leaders who will then lead the nation to acceptance of the
Messiahship of Jesus. The word will have to come in one form or another, and perhaps the
seeds we are sowing today will be of benefit in the distant future as well as the present
with Jewish people coming to the Messiah even now.
There is a third application, and that is the importance of praying for
Israel and praying for the Jewish people as well. Most believe Gentile believers probably
don’t live in a situation or an environment where they have the opportunity to
witness to Jewish people. However, every Gentile believer can pray for the Jewish people
and pray for the people of Israel. While God has worked out his program he works by means,
and the means is by means of the prayers of the saints. Witnessing might be limited, but
prayer is not limited in any way.
********** END **********
