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
