The Messiah and His Miracles

The Conflict with the Sanhedrists

What was the response of Jesus to the decision to reject His Messianic claim?

It was a prophecy of judgement - sometimes spoken of as a 'rejection of Israel'. It is true that Israel rejected Him and His offer of the Messianic kingdom, and it is true that He withdrew the offer of the 'at hand' kingdom, but His words and actions had clear bounderies.

The rejection of Israel. 

Replacement theologians hold that God, in Christ, rejected the nation of Israel and permanently replaced them in His purposes with the Church.  I contend that the rejection of Israel by Jesus the Messiah was not a permanent rejection.   The Messiah, who always chose His words with great care, spoke of one generation of the nation, ‘this generation’.  It is ‘this generation’ of Israel that was rejected, because it was with ‘this generation’ of Israel that He contended. He said, “He (the Son of Man) must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.”[1]  And His recorded words of Matthew 21.43, “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it,” were spoken to the leaders of that generation.[2]

It will be that single generation that will stand at the bar of God and be accused of unlawfully rejecting their Messiah: “The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here”.[3]

Previous generations had rejected the servants of YHWH, but that one generation alone rejected the Son of God. Their own words will condemn them.[4]  Jesus says as much in His parable of the vinedressers.  Their response to the claims of the Lord of the vineyard, presented by the Son and Heir, was: “This is the heir, come let us kill him”.[5]

The phrase ‘this generation’ is used in Matt.11.16; 12.41,42,45; 23.36; 24.34; Mk.8.12,38; 13.30; Luke 7.31; 11.29-32; 11.50,51; 17.25; 21.32.  Qualifying adjectives of ‘this generation’ include ‘wicked’, ‘evil’ and ‘adulterous’.  The rejection of this generation by the Son of God was justified!

The supercessionist view that God permanently rejected Israel is incorrect. While it is true that a rejection took place, it was the rejection of a generation. While it would have major implications for future generations, it cannot be used to teach that the Messiah withdrew God’s covenantal promises from the nation.  As with the wilderness generation at the time of the exodus from Egypt, and as with the generation that went into captivity in Babylon, there is an ‘until’ with this judgement. For the wilderness generation, the ‘until’ lasted 40 years. For the Babylonian captives, the ‘until’ lasted 70 years.  Here the ‘until’ is not given a time qualification but a moral dimension. Jesus, referring to His rejection and Israel’s subsequent rejection, gives the condition for their restoration: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more until you say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!”[6]  Here, He is anticipating call from a future repentant Israel. Another saying of the Messiah in Matthew supports this.  When He spoke to the apostles He anticipated a future restoration of Israel: “assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”[7]

Paul, the great expositor, also believed in the future restoration of Israel when he looked into the future and said: “all Israel shall be saved”;[8] and this is the context for that mighty statement: “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable”.[9] Luke, describing the teaching ministry of the resurrected Messiah in Acts, categorises it as kingdom truth: “to whom He also presented Himself alive … being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”[10] Just prior to His ascension they asked, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”[11] Jesus did not deny the restoration of Israel only informed them that God the Father had not yet published the timetable of it. “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.”[12]  Paul asked the question, “I say then, has God cast away His people?” and himself answered, “Certainly not!”[13]

---

[1] Luke 17.25

[2] Matt.21.23

[3] Matt.12.41,42

[4] Matt.23.31-36

[5] Matt.21.38

[6] Matt.23.39; Luke 13.35

[7] Matt.19.28

[8] Rom.11.26

[9] Rom.11.29

[10] Acts 1.3

[11] Acts 1.6

[12] Acts 1.7

[13] Rom.11.1

The Messiah and His Miracles (Continued)

The Conflict with the Sanhedrists (the leaders of the nation)

The governing body of Israel at the  time of Christ had observed and weighed the actions of Jesus and decided to reject His Messianic claim (see previous blogs). This time we begin to examine how Jesus reacted to their decision.

What was the response of Jesus to their decision?

There is a point of no return for the obdurate. In His dealings with man, God sometimes says, ‘enough is enough’.  The judgements at the time of Noah, and then at the tower of Babel, suggest as much. Twice before, in His dealings with Israel, God has pronounced a judgement that affected the whole nation.

(i)                 The generation of Israelites that rebelled on the journey from Egypt to Canaan under the leadership of Moses suffered such a judgement.

(ii)               Then there was the judgement that sent the nation into captivity to Babylon.

(iii)             Now there is to be a judgement on the generation that rejected Jesus as Messiah. When they rejected Jesus as Messiah, particularly for such base reasons and in such a way, that generation of Israel was rejected.

When they dismissed Jesus’ Messianic claims and when they attributed the good works that He had performed by the Spirit of God, to the power of the Devil,[1] they committed the unpardonable sin.  Their lying blasphemy, which still lives today, has no forgiveness.[2]  Those that attributed the attesting signs to Beelzebub were clearly in the camp of Satan, and Jesus called them a “brood of vipers”,[3] words well chosen, for they were true children of the Serpent,[4] and disseminated the lies of the father of lies.[5]

Their rejected Messiah had yet one more message for them. When He was asked for yet another attesting sign, He said: “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”[6]  This sign, which will be more thoroughly examined in chapter ten, has an extra dimension that the Messiah expressed: “The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here”.[7]  “The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the Wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here.”[8] This suggests that not only have they rejected a prophet greater than Jonah, but rejected the personified ‘Wisdom’ of God.[9]

Not only did Jesus prophesy the ultimate fate of that generation of the Jewish nation – the most privileged generation that ever lived – a generation who had the living God walking among them, blessing them and teaching them – but He also prophesied their more immediate fate. He gave it in the form of an illustration, no doubt prompted by the case that caused the final rift: “When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came’. And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.”[10]

The eight woes of Matthew 23 repeat His judgement on the Pharisaic Sanhedrists: “Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”[11]

---

[1] Matt.12.24

[2] Matt.12.31,32

[3] Matt.12.34

[4] John 8.44

[5] John 8.44,55

[6] Matt.12.39,40 (NASB)

[7] Matt.12.41

[8] Matt.12.42

[9] Proverbs chapter 8

[10] Matt.12.43-45

[11] Matt.23.33-36

The Messiah and His Miracles

What was the decision of the nation’s leaders to the messianic claim of Jesus?

The third stage of investigating a Messianic Claim is the stage of decision and declaration. To repeat, the Pharisaic Sanhedrists decided to reject the Messianic claimant because:

(1)     He would not protect their position in the nation.

(2)     He opposed their doctrine.

(3)     He condemned their lifestyle.

If He were not stopped, they would

(1)     Lose the adulation of the population.

(2)     Lose the power they held as interpreters of the oral law.

(3)     Lose the wealth that their position in the nation provided.

The Sadducean Sanhedrists decided to reject the Messianic claimant because:

(1)     He opposed their moneymaking ventures.

(2)     He opposed their doctrine.

(3)     He condemned their lifestyle.

If He were not stopped they would:

(1)     Lose their political power with Rome

(2)     Lose their influence over the nation as intermediaries between Israelites and God.

(3)     Lose the wealth generated by the monopolies they controlled.  

Nevertheless, these reasons for the rejection of the prophet of Nazareth were not for public consumption. The nation’s leaders had already begun a rumour-mongering programme but needed some public issue to carry the general population in support of their decision.  So they brought to Him a very difficult case of healing, significantly a man with an unclean demon, who was both blind and dumb.

Although in the T’nach exorcisms are almost unknown, at the time of the Messiah, Jewish exorcists were having some success. Their pattern of exorcism was to establish communication with the demon, ascertain its name and then addressing it directly, command it in the name of a higher authority to leave. The disciples of the Lord also used this pattern. For example, the seventy returned from their mission saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in Your name”.[1] Another example, though not typical, is recorded in Acts: “Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches”.[2]    However, with a dumb demon this communication is difficult, in most cases, impossible.  The Lord Himself acknowledged the extra difficulty when the disciples confessed they could not cast out such a demon in the name of the Messiah.[3]   Because, in the Jewish mind, only Messiah would be able to heal these extreme cases, here was a decisive test for Jesus.  In this case, because the man was also sightless, the degree of difficulty was increased, yet “He healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw”.[4]  The onlookers immediately understood the significance of this Messianic miracle: “… all the multitudes were amazed and said, Could this be the Son of David?”[5]

The Sanhedrists were ready with an explanation. Wishing to discredit the sign, they repeated their previously published opinion that Jesus was demon possessed.[6] “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons”.[7]  The Sanhedrists’ accused Jesus of being in league with Satan, and that Satan gave Him His power.   Their position, whether they understood it or not, was that the temptation in the wilderness had been successful. Jesus had taken the bribes offered and was now a follower of Satan and a sinner like the rest of Adam’s ‘fallen race’.  Since Satan had failed to make Jesus the ‘cast down’ one, he was now getting the population to treat Him as such, by this insidious lie. The lie became the accepted opinion of the population. The Sanhedrists never disputed that Jesus performed miracles, but the Talmud reiterates the reason for His rejection - he did it by sorcery, expanding it further by saying He brought magical charms back from Egypt (Egypt was regarded as the special home of magic, an opinion expressed  in the Talmud).[8] The Pharisees rejected Jesus as Messiah because He would not endorse the oral law, and support their position in the nation.  The Sadducees rejected Jesus as Messiah because He opposed their unholy practices in the Temple, and undermined their position in the nation. But the reason they gave to the nation was not the real reason. They published that Jesus was demon possessed and therefore could not be Israel’s Messiah.  Thus the climax of the investigation was over the issue of the key attesting sign – the serpent in subjection!  They declared that Jesus did not have the serpent in subjection, but the serpent had Jesus in subjection!

Next Time: The Response of Jesus

---

[1] Luke 10.17

[2] Acts 19.13

[3] Mark 9.15-29

[4] Matt.12.22

[5] Matt.12.23

[6] Matt.9.34; 10.25

[7] Matt.12.24

[8] B.Qidd.49^b (See Christianity in Talmud and Midrash by R.T. Herford published by Williams & Norgate – Division 1.A.(8))

The Messiah and His Miracles

The Conflict over the Oral Law

The Damascus Gate in Jerusalem

We now examine Messianic righteousness and compare it with Pharisaic righteousness.

In contrast to Pharisaic righteousness, Messianic righteousness had a narrow gate.  Only those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah could enter.   His followers were on a firm foundation: “Whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock”.[1] 

Messianic righteousness was a narrow way, a way of faith and love. 

A way of faith: “Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not worry, saying, What shall we eat? or What shall we drink? or What shall we wear? For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you”.[2]  

And a way of love: “I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you”[3]; “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”[4].

Stage of Interrogation (Continued)

Returning now to the stage of interrogation, delegates from the Sanhedrin were required to observe the life and ministry of the claimant, and if they thought any action or teaching was questionable they could voice their concerns.  When dealing with Jesus of Nazareth, the objections of the Sanhedrists were almost exclusively in the area of the oral law, with questions concerning the Sabbath the most frequent, since they had given ‘Sabbath keeping’ such a high profile.  The fourth command of the decalogue had been expanded by hundreds of additional rules and regulations regarding Sabbath observance to cover most eventualities.  For example, the Shabbat section in the Mishnah begins with the detail of those acts of transporting objects from one domain to another, some of which violate the Sabbath.  It reads:

1:1 A. [Acts of] transporting objects from one domain to another [which violate] the Sabbath

(1) are two, which [indeed] are four [for one who is] inside,

(2) and two which are four [for one who is] outside.

B.How so?

I    C. [If on the Sabbath] the beggar stands outside and the householder inside,

D.[and] the beggar stuck his hand inside and put [a beggar’s bowl] into the hand of the householder,

E. or if he took [something] from inside it and brought it out,

F. the beggar is liable, the householder is exempt.

II  G.[If] the householder stuck his hand outside and put [something] into the hand of the beggar,

H. or if he took [something] from it and brought it inside,

I.the householder is liable, and the beggar is exempt.

III J. [If] the beggar stuck his hand inside, and the householder took [something] from it,

K. or if [the householder] put something in it and he [the beggar] removed it,

L. both of them are exempt.

IV M. [If] the householder put his hand outside and the beggar took [something] from it,

N. or if [the beggar] put something into it and [the householder] brought it back inside,

O. both of them are exempt.[5]

Jesus condemned this legalism with the words, “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!”[6]  At the time of Jesus, questions as to what is proper on the Sabbath constantly occupied the minds of the legalists.  If a Pharisee was asked, “Why did God make Israel?” it was likely he would have replied, ‘To honour the Sabbath’.  In Pharisaism, the Sabbath was personified as the Queen of Israel and the Bride of YHWH.

Each of the synoptics records the incident when Jesus’ hungry disciples plucked the ears of corn to provide sustenance.   Since it was on the Sabbath, the investigating Sanhedrists raised it as an issue: “And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!”[7]  The Pharisees themselves would not normally walk through a field in case they accidentally uprooted a wayward stalk of grain, thereby becoming guilty of reaping on the Sabbath.

Jesus responded to the question by giving pertinent examples from the T’nach.  The first was of David who, when in need, ate of the bread that by law was reserved for the priests. The second was of the priests themselves whose work substantially increased on the Sabbath because of the higher number of offerings.  Neither the actions of David, nor the activities of the priests, received the disapproval of the interpreters of the law. Jesus took the first example from the period of David’s rejection, when the officers of a dying dynasty were hounding him. The selection of this event seems to suggest that Jesus knew already that the Sanhedrin would officially reject Him.  The second example related to the killing of sacrificial lambs in the Temple as sin offerings, a parallel of some significance.   However, the coup-de-gras was the claim of the Messiah that, “the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath”;[8] again driving home the point that He was more than Messiah.  By this time, it was clear that Jesus was not going to support the Pharisees and endorse the oral law. 

While the delegation involved in assessing His Messianic credentials were mostly Pharisees, there were others on the Sanhedrin that had an interest in the investigation and decision.  They were the Chief Priests - Sadducees who rejected the immortality of the soul, and attributed all human activity to free will and none to providence. Because they did not believe in the resurrection, they expected neither reward nor punishment after death.  Therefore, with no restraint placed on their actions by their religious beliefs, they exercised power, not for the good of the nation, but for their own individual gain. Influenced by Greek culture, they cultivated good relations with Rome.  They were not interested in any Messiah, other than one who would improve their power base in the nation.  Jesus rejected their Epicurean lifestyle, their corrupt ‘business’ practices and their defective doctrines.  At the beginning of His public ministry, He upset more than just the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple.  He had made it clear that if He were confirmed as Messiah He would ‘clean up’ the Temple, and Annas, Caiaphas and the chief priests could expect to lose their lucrative business.  This meant that Jesus would not get their support!

More Next Time

---

[1] Matt.7.24

[2] Matt.5.30-33

[3] Matt.5.44

[4] Matt.22.37-40

[5] Shabbat 1.1 (Mishnah)(translated by Jacob Neusner – see Bibliography)

[6] Matt. 23:24

[7] Matt.12.2; cf. Mk.2.24; Lk.6.2

[8] Matt.12.8; cf. Mk.2.28; Lk.6.5

The Messiah and His Miracles (Continued)

The Conflict over the Oral Law (Continued)

It is proper and pertinent to draw attention to the phrase, “but I say to you”. The Messiah chose His words with great care, because He was formally announcing what was opposite to the teaching of the Tanaim and therefore unacceptable to the Pharisees.  The oral law, identified in the Bible as “the tradition of the elders”, relied on precepts handed on from one generation to another.  For example the Mishnah records the words of R. Joshua: “I have a tradition from Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, who heard it from his master, and his master from his master, as a law revealed to Moses at Sinai”.^[1] But in the case of Jesus He was standing on His own authority as Messiah.   Furthermore, in His office as Messiah He was declaring that He had the authority to interpret the law.  There is also, in this phrasing, that element which implied deity, for the sub-text is that He was the giver of the law and therefore needed none other beside Himself to interpret it.

The sermon began with consideration of the inner life.  The blessed are the poor in spirit, the ones that mourn, the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart and those that hunger and thirst after righteousness.  Chapter 6 of Matthew’s gospel returns to the theme of the inner life.  For example, the matter of giving alms: “When you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.”[2]  Then the matter of praying: “When you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father … in the secret place”.[3] Then the Messiah turns to the subject of fasting: “When you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place”.[4]  

These were declared in sharp contrast to the hypocritical righteousness of the Pharisees that emphasised outward observances, hence the warnings.  In respect of alms-giving: “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So … do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honoured by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.”[5]  And regarding praying: “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.”[6]  And then in respect of fasting: “Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.”[7]  The actions of the hypocrites were, according to the Messiah, designed only to impress others.

Who are the hypocrites Jesus had in mind?  At this time, He identified, by implication, the Scribes and Pharisees, those guardians of the oral law, but after His official rejection, He named and shamed them: “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honour Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me”“.[8] Then the seven times repeated, “woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”[9] There the Lord described them as fools and blind guides.  On occasion, He coupled the Pharisees with the Sadducees;[10] and sometimes with the Herodians,[11] indicating that they too were hypocrites

In the same discourse, Jesus taught that Pharisaic righteousness had a wide gate.[12]  As has already been mentioned, they taught that all Israelites have a share in the world to come.[13]  Yet, even they would exclude some.  “And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who says, the resurrection of the dead is a teaching which does not derive from the Torah, (2) and the Torah does not come from Heaven; and (3) an Epicurean.”^[14]  This section effectively excluded the Sadducees.  A later inclusion seems directed at Jesus, “and those who whisper over a wound and say, ‘I will put none of the diseases upon you which I have put on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord who heals you’ (Ex. 15:26)”.[15] Notwithstanding the exceptions, Pharisaic doctrine pronounced almost all Jews ‘safe’, it had a gate wide enough to take almost every Jew ever born.

Jesus further taught that Pharisaism was a broad road – only outward conformity was required.  However, it was a way of works, done publicly, which would only bring the praise of men.[16] It was a way that seemed right but led to destruction.[17] The man that followed the way of the Pharisees would have built his house on sand, a foundation that could not hold it. Paul, the great expositor expressed it thus: “they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God”.[18]

The Pharisees were also guilty of judging, finding specks in the eyes of others, when they had planks in their own eyes.[19]  The condemnation pronounced by the Messiah was absolute. They claimed to speak for God but were, in fact, false prophets.  They claimed to be the shepherds of Israel but were guilty of decimating the flock like wolves.[20] They pretended to be righteous people, living righteous lives, and bearing righteous fruit, but were, in fact, corrupt trees bearing evil fruit.[21] They practiced lawlessness,[22] an amazing charge considering that they imposed additional laws on the population.  Implicit in the condemnation of the Messiah is the understanding that the imposition of the oral law undermined the Torah.

More Next Time

---

^[1] Eduyyot 8.7 A (Mishnah)

[2] Matt.6.3,4

[3] Matt.6.6

[4] Matt.6.16

[5] Matt.6.2

[6] Matt.6.5

[7] Matt.6.16

[8] Matt.15.1,7,8

[9] Matt.23.13,14,15,23,25,27,29

[10] Matt.16.3

[11] Matt.22.18

[12] Matt.7.13

[13] Sanhedrin 10.1.A (Mishnah)

^[14] Sanhedrin 10.1C,D (1),(2),(3) (Mishnah)

[15] Sanhedrin 10.1.F (Mishnah)

[16] Matt.6.2,5,16

[17] Matt.7.13

[18] Rom.10.3

[19] Matt.7.1ff

[20] Matt.7.15ff

[21] Matt.7.17

[22] Matt.7.23