Here is the link:

YouTube: christophermattix

To the modern reader the entire trial seems openly unjust, and blame seems to rest upon Pilate for being weak in light of the mounting pressure, as he clearly condemned an innocent man. But the story is much deeper, and one must again return, rightly so, to Mark 14, where the first trial took place.  It is here that the Jewish leaders openly condemn Christ to death, because of blasphemy, and Pilate is only their puppet to see their desires through (Klinghoffer 72-74). Mark 14:55 clearly settles this: “Now the chief priests and the whole Council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none” (Italics mine). The hard part for them was convincing the Roman government to sentence him. Bock sums this up by stating that “the examination that was held was always an attempt to gather charges, so that a case could be made before Rome and Pilate” (194).

Mark 10:45

The Sanhedrin did not condemn Jesus for claiming to be the Messiah, or for stating He would destroy the temple, or for His spiritual powers. As for Jesus being the Messiah, Jews prayed every day for the Messiah to come (Klinghoffer 63), they were expectantly waiting for Him and Jesus seemed to fit the requirements to many. As for Jesus’ threat to destroy the temple, it was largely laughed at, and was not of major importance. Lastly, Jesus’ spiritual powers could not be denied, even by the Sanhedrin, but they attributed it to Satan (Mark 3:22). No, none of these explain truly why the Jewish leaders had to kill Jesus. Of course, ultimately, Jesus had come to die, so their having to kill Jesus was only fulfilling prophecy and accomplishing His intended plan (Mark 10:45).

The claims of Jesus that got Him killed were truly blasphemy, if coming from the mouth of a human. Man has no authority unless it is given to him, and pride is always a sin for him, for he owns nothing. But Jesus claimed to be God, and boldly declared Himself to have equal rights with God, the Sanhedrin was left in shock and anger: He had pronounced blasphemy, making himself equal to God (John 5:18). Such had almost had Him stoned earlier in His ministry (John 11:30-1). While some argue that Jesus would never have had the idea to claim Himself as deity (Klinghoffer 67), it is a central teaching of the entire New Testament, and clearly the Sanhedrin saw this as well. The trial answer in Mark 14:61-4 brings this to light:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.

When asked if He was the Messiah, the Christ, He answers “I am.” At this answer the high priest would have again brought out false witnesses to disprove this claim, but Jesus does not leave this option open. He continues instead “and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” This statement released the furious anger of the high priest and ultimately condemned Christ by His own declaration. But what is so spectacularly blasphemous about this claim?

Psalm 110:1 was quoted by Jesus when He connected Himself, the Son of Man, to “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool’” (Italics mine). It is clear that David is not the one at the right hand of God, but instead, it is David’s Lord, as Christ had earlier interpreted (Mark 12:36-7). This is a conversation between God the Father and God the Son, as Christ declares, and in this He stated that He was this second Person, an equal to God (Bock 12). Here, this man before them was authoritatively declaring before them, that He was deity incarnate! This point became and still is the main dividing line between Christianity and Judaism, as Klinghoffer acknowledges (27-8).

The second part of Psalm 110, where David declares the role of judge to “my lord”, is used by Christ in His answer to allude next to Daniel 7:13-4. It prophecies,

[B]ehold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Italics mine)

Jesus, by connecting these Messianic promises, interprets Himself as being God incarnate, both as the judge of the world, and king of the world. In essence, this Man from Nazareth was standing before the rulers of Israel, condemning their trial as unjust and insignificant. “In fact, the claim to come on the clouds is a significant claim, not only alluding to Daniel 7:13, but also using imagery that claims a right that only deity possesses” (Bock 201). The Ruler of the world stood before them, as God in flesh (Isaiah 9:6), declaring that He would vindicate this injustice and punish them if they declared Him guilty. And so, in context, this claim was enormous in magnitude and heavy with glory. Yet the Sanhedrin condemned Him, rejecting His claims and handing Him over to be killed.

"Crucify! Crucify!"

The stage was set, this homeless wanderer from Nazareth, with His untrained mob of followers: who was He? The evidence was overwhelming, yet underwhelming at the same time, in perhaps the greatest paradox of all time. Could this simple Man possibly be God? It is hard to blame the Sanhedrin for utterly rejecting Jesus and declaring Him a blasphemer and a lunatic. And yet, He had proven Himself to be the Messiah (Mark 2:7), and God had declared His Son to be God incarnate (Matthew 3:17). Could not God have worked differently in His Son, so that He would not have been so utterly rejected by the rulers of Israel? Did they falter from God’s plan by rejecting the Messiah? No, absolutely not (Luke 24:25-7).

Christ had rejected them (Matthew 21:33-45), knowing they would reject Him (John 1:10-1), having come with the intent of “[bearing] our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 2:24-25). The Jewish leaders had not done their job, but were irresponsible shepherds (John 10:12) and blind guides (Matthew 23:24).In contrast, “When [Jesus] saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matthew 9:36).

It becomes, at this point, easy to criminalize the leaders of Israel for rejecting the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. After Christ was resurrected from the dead, as prophesied (Psalm 16:10), things became much clearer, and the homeless Man has become seen more and more as the God of glory, who came to dwell among us (John 1:14). But men today still reject Jesus, and deny Him as being wrong. The court case lies before each one today: who is this Jesus? If He truly is God, and truly resurrected from the dead, and truly will come to judge the world for rejecting or accepting Him, what then? With limited knowledge the Sanhedrin opposed and rejected Jesus as a fraud, but how many reject Him today, seeing Him as wrong, or unnecessary, or as simply a great teacher.

Jesus was rejected, as has been shown, for a combination of reasons. First of all, for imposing His authority on the rabbis of Israel, by laying to waste the false authority of the oral Torah. Secondly, and most importantly, for claiming Himself to be One and the same with God, thus having the authority to judge the world. Yet His trial, as it were, did not end there, for it is up to all men to decide if Christ was ultimately right or wrong. If the Galilean really is God, then there are serious ramifications to be dealt with, for those who reject Christ reject God, meaning eternal separation from God (Matthew 10:33; Luke 16:19-31). But Christ countered this, by calling all to believe His words, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25-6).

Bibliography

Bock, Darrell L. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Juadaism and the Final Examination of Jesus: a philological historical study of the key Jewish Themes Impacting Mark 14:61-64. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Print.

Cohn-Sherbok, Dan. The Jewish Messiah. Edinburg: T & T Clark, 1997. Print.

“Is Jesus the G-d of Abraham?” 2006. Shema. April 5 2011 <http://www.shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id13.html>.

Klinghoffer, David. Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History. New York: Doubleday, 2005. Print.

Martyr, Saint Justin. The Fathers of the Church: Writings of Saint Justin Martyr. Ed. Ludwig Schopp. New York: Christian Heritage, 1948. Print.

McGrath, Alister. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: the Protestant Revolution: A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First. New York: Harper One, 2007. Print.

Neusner, Jacob. Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture: Intruduction to the Rabbinic Midrash. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. Print.

—. The Mishnah: A New Translation. Ed. Jacob Neusner. Rensselaer: Yale University, 1988.Print.

—. The Oral Torah: The Sacred Books of Judaism, an Introduction. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986. Print.

Simmons, Rabbi. “Ask Rabbi Simmons: Jesus as the Messiah.” n.d. About.com. 5 April 2011 <http://www.judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_messiah3.htm>.

Telushkin, Joseph. “Jesus, the Crucifixion, Pontius Pilate and the New Testament.” 2001. Jewish Virtual Library. 5 April 2011 <http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/jesus.html>.

First of all, an ironic set of happenings characterize this event, because neither are the Hebrew Scriptures, nor the Mishnah (being still in unwritten form) followed, while they accuse Him of distorting Scripture. It can be seen, as Darrell Bock puts forth, that this “capital trial” went against the direct teachings of the Mishnah (190; Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation 589-90). When dealing with a crime deserving death, the trials were: to take more than one day, to not let the defendant be charged on that day, to not be on a Sabbath or a Feast day, to not take place in the house of the High Priest but at a public council (607-8), and lastly to let the defendant speak at the introduction to the trial. None of these happened during the trial that condemned Jesus by the standards of Jewish Law, as the Sanhedrin interpreted it. Also, in this specific case, the accusation was blasphemy, so the defendant could only be accused if he used the divine name as blasphemy (597-98).

The simple and profound reading of Mark 14 shows that none of these things were done by the rulers of Israel as they condemned Jesus. He was accused, charged, and condemned in the same morning, before sunrise, while it all happened on a Feast day, being the Passover (John 18:28). John also tells us that the events happened in the house of the High Priest, Caiaphas (John 18:15), and no Gospel records show Jesus having the opportunity to give a defense before the Sanhedrin (Paul, in contrast, was always given this opportunity).

The question then must come: why would the Jewish leaders choose here to overstep the rules for a just trial to condemn Jesus on such short notice? First of all, the Jewish leaders were clearly fearful of the hordes of people who saw Jesus as the Messiah (e.g. Matthew 21:7-10). Luke 22:2 also attests to this, showing the anxiety of the Jewish leaders before Jesus’ arrest: “[t]he chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put [Jesus] to death, for they feared the people.” They feared the people, because the mob was fickle and seemed to love Jesus. This Galilean was growing in popularity, and it was becoming a burden on them, because they could not oppose Him with words, as shown before. But to their minds He was deceiving the people to believe Him, for they proclaimed Him as the Messiah, and they saw Him as even more dangerous because He proclaimed Himself as God incarnate (e.g. Mark 2:1-11). The Jewish leaders also feared losing the limited authority that Rome had given them because of the unrest that Jesus was creating (John 11:47-53), for people were starting to believe in Him as the Messiah, that is, the political ruler who would come and take away the oppression of the Romans (Klinghoffer 84).

Putting these parts together, the trial of Mark seems to make more sense, for scholars disagree greatly as to why Jesus was condemned at this trial. It can be argued, from a standpoint of context, that it was not one answer by Jesus that had Him condemned and later crucified through the Romans. Jesus had been doggedly pursued across Judea by many rabbis and many had ample opportunity to listen to Him and hear His ‘blasphemous’ sayings. This must be made clear, because there is such discussion over the following passage:

Now the chief priests and the whole Council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. (Mark 14:55-64)

The basis of the debate, as to why Jesus was rejected by the Jewish leaders, rides for many on Jesus’ only recorded answer. While it will be shown that this answer was indeed blasphemy, as the Sanhedrin (called “Council” by Mark) understood it, notice must also be given to the context of Jesus’ ministry prior to this, as shown previously in this work.

Darrell Bock, a key source on this specific passage, says that this trial did not fit the legal requirements of Jewish capital trials because it was a preliminary hearing, as Rome would have to make the decision to have Jesus killed (191). This fits the evidence much better, because, as shown before, the Sanhedrin did not meet according to their laws for capital trials, although this does not mean they were right in doing it secretly and biasedly (194-97). Suddenly the passage starts to come together logically, because if the Jews could condemn Jesus to death in this trial, why would they look for witness about His claim to destroy the temple (Mark 14:58)? John 18:31 tells us that the Jews could not execute capital punishment on anyone, having lost the ability to Rome. Therefore it was important for the Sanhedrin to find crimes by Jesus that Pilate would accept as deserving death. A destruction of Herod’s temple, a massive undertaking, would perhaps in part entitle such a sentence (193). The second accusation would be to show Jesus as rebel, wanting to raise a Jewish revolt against Rome (194).

This proves true when Christ is handed over to Pilate. The Sanhedrin, seemingly, take time to convince him of crimes Jesus was committing against Rome; after this John tells us that:

…Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” (John 18:33-35)

A very perplexed Roman authority is now portrayed in the Gospels, as he knows better than to trust the schemes of the Sanhedrin, but cannot trust the dirty criminal before him. This frustration is described by the writers, as Pilate struggles to make the decision on this Friday morning. Finally he gives up, letting the Jewish leaders have their way over the crimes of this seemingly petty criminal (Matthew 27:24).

Here is a link to download the audio: Sermon: Mark 14:53-65 (Judging the World’s Judge)

I preached this as a sermon at Centrelia Bible Chapel this weekend, in Centrelia, WA.

Let me know if you have problems with it.

Blessings, Christopher.

[continued from part 1] … Christ Himself also proclaimed: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6; italics mine).

Statements like these, among the myriad clearly infuriated the Pharisees! The Pharisees, as all other rabbis, had to borrow authority from othersources, and teach truth based on an ideas’ acceptance within the group (Klinghoffer 59). Christ stepped into the traditional way of interpreting Scripture, into the discussions, in the midst of the debates, and simply pronounced truth. It is why “the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:28-29). In one discussion with the Jewish people, at the temple, they asked Him about His claim to being eternal: “‘Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?’  Jesus answered… ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.’ So the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.’ So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple” (John 8:53, 56-59).

            In context, this seems absurd. The leaders were asking themselves: who was this Jesus? Why did He have so much sway on the people (John 12:19)? Was this not a simple Galilean from the tiny city of Nazareth (Matthew 13:55)? Who was this poor, untrained so-called rabbi (meaning ‘teacher’) fooling (John 7:14)? Was He speaking the truth, or dangerously leading people astray (John 7:12)? This Jesus would simply barge into synagogues and the very temple, teaching with no authority other than His own. The annoyance of the Pharisees is clearly understandable, to the point of seeking to kill Him (ultimately for blasphemy, as addressed later). After all, the oral Torah had been set-up to protect against such people, to defend against those who believed they could interpret and teach Scripture while untrained.

Speaking of Jesus’ followers, David Klinghoffer has this to say about the Galileans of the time: “Jesus’ fellow Galileans, the first to hear his message, were famous for being on average less knowledgeable about the Torah than their fellows to the south in Judea…[they were] viewed as rustics.” He also states that they were “relatively simple folk … [unlike inhabitants of] Jerusalem, with its rabbis, its priests, who would know better (than to believe Jesus)” (43). He then concludes by stating this as an explanation as to why Jesus’ ministry grew so powerful, because He was convincing the untrained crowd.

Changed the world forever.

Clearly this is naïveté on the part of Klinghoffer, having overlooked Jesus’ impact on high class Jews, not least among them being Nicodemus, a member of the elite Pharisees, and of the Sanhedrin (John 3:1-21; 19:39). Also, the fact remains that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem were absolutely unable and incapable of responding to the mental prowess of Jesus, whereas after a certain day of questioning, the Jewish leaders relented and “no one dared to ask him any more questions” (Mark 12:34b).

The reason why the Jewish leaders did oppose Jesus so strongly in His short career was because He was considered an apicurios (as being a follower of the Greek philosopher Epicurus). An apicurios, according to rabbinic literature (another name for the later-written oral Torah) is the “term for a Jew who knowingly rejects the oral tradition (or oral Torah) not from ignorance but from willfulness.” The Mishnah, the written form of the oral Torah that came out after Jesus around 200 AD (25), explains “a first century teaching that one must know how to rebut the apicurios even as one disdains the philosophy (of Epicureans)” (59-60; Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation 677-8). Thus it was the duty of a learned Jew to dispute Jesus, because according to the rabbinic teachers they had to hate those who rejected the oral Torah. It was likely the exact reason for why Jesus purposefully attacked these man-made traditions, as much of the Sermon on the Mount shows in Matthew 5:17-6:18, traditions and extra-biblical laws which Jewish leaders supposed had been passed down from Moses himself, along with the written text.

Jesus boldly met the opposition head-on, and would not let this lie continue being taught to those who feared and wished to live for God. As the Gospels say, Jesus was winning all the battles, so in fear of losing credibility and authority the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders were now forced to swiftly plot the death of Jesus (Matthew 26:4; John 7:1). They had failed to defend Judaism before the imposing figure of the homeless man of Nazareth, so other, even illegal, means were sought after to rid themselves of Him.

Now, for further clarity, the purpose of the oral Torah must be understood. In the time of Jesus it is supposed that it had remained in oral format, being passed from rabbi to rabbi, but slowly written forms of the oral Torah began appearing between two and six hundred years after Christ. They are known today as the Mishnah, Palestinian Talmud, and Babylonian Talmud, among others (Neusner vii-viii). Neusner, an important Jewish scholar in this area, explains: “Judaism has always maintained that God revealed a dual Torah to Moses at Sinai: One Torah was to be transmitted to the people of Israel through the medium of writing; the other was to be handed down orally, memorized by successive sages” (vii; italics mine). From those outside of Judaism, this takes incredible criticism, for the Hebrew Scriptures make no mention of the existence of this so called oral Torah, and the fact that it was not written down until some 1,500 years after Moses’ writing of the Torah raises serious questions.

A likely verdict, and clearly the one Jesus came to, is that this oral Torah had not proceeded from God through Moses, but instead was a self-defense mechanism created by Jewish leaders. To the extent that those who held to the idea likely did not know it had been invented sometime in the past, and a repeated lie often seems like the truth when separated from the evidence. The fact of the matter is that there is little to no evidence of such an oral Torah existing for much time before Christ came on the scene, but Christ clearly knew of it as “the tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:3, 5). Now, the obvious question becomes: why did the Jewish leaders feel the need to create a secondary source to interpret the Scriptures from?            Unknowingly Klinghoffer gives us the answer, showing the drive behind the Jewish leaders: “Without tradition, either the cryptic text of the Pentateuch was locked forever, its true meaning indiscernible, or it was open to all to guess as their intellect or whim directed them—a free-for-all of scriptural interpretation where the Torah means whatever the reader wants it to mean” (59). Similarly, Alister McGrath, in his book Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, states the foundational truth that separates Protestants from Catholics: the radical concept that (perhaps) if all people had the Bible readily available to them, each could be saved, understand, apply it and be transformed by Scripture alone (208). This was the motto of the Reformers, standing on Luther’s concept of Sola Scriptura.

These two time periods, although being more than a millennia apart, relate in the following way. The fears of the Jewish leaders and the Catholic clergy seem one and the same in this area: that if ordinary people begin interpreting Scripture for themselves, they may come up with different interpretations of Scripture as the “educated” priests. Jesus was the forerunner in giving ordinary people the ability to read and understand Scripture for themselves, as He prayed to God in Luke 10:21-22,

In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

As stated before, Christ also explained that Scripture is interpreted by the Holy Spirit, and not the whims of the unlearned or so-called learned (John 16:13).

Ultimately, the pride and jealously of the Jewish leaders here shines forth. Jesus had struck a very deep and dark chord in them, much like Luther had done, for He attacked their authority and claimed Scripture’s authority superseded them, and that He Himself was its right interpreter, not their extra-biblical rabbinical tradition.

Martin Luther against the World

Slowly, as this reality grew on the Jewish leaders, they could no longer think properly to see if Jesus really was the Messiah, not even bothering to investigate if He was right or not. In the following passage, observe the layman’s desire to know if Jesus is the Messiah only to see it thwarted by the Pharisaic pride:

When they heard [Jesus’ teaching], some of the people said, “This really is the Prophet.” Others said, “This is the Christ.” But some said, “Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So there was a division among the people over him. Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him. The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why did you not bring him (to kill him)?” The officers answered, “No one ever spoke like this man!” The Pharisees answered them, “Have you also been deceived? Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.” Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.” (John 7:40-52; italics mine)

And so the hunt to find a way to kill Jesus began to mount, as all the Gospels recount.

The events of this sequence, from the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, to His crucifixion on the cross, and resurrection from the dead as proof of deity, is well-known to the reader of Scripture, so the overall details will not be belabored. What will be centered on is the first trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. After many attempts the Jewish leaders got their hands on the homeless man, Jesus of Nazareth, and brought Him to a secret tribunal in a Pharisee’s house while it was still dark. There they accused Him of blasphemy and agreed among each other that He was a deceiver of the people and a blasphemer, declaring Himself to be equal to God. Again, the accounts of this are found in all the Gospels.

Great clarity and great mystery at once surround Jesus, the Galilean teacher from the obscure village of Nazareth. Great clarity for He spoke clearly and authoritatively, teaching truth and demanding obedience. Yet great mystery, for His natural boldness turned to quietness and purposeful veiling when confronted with revealing His true identity. The paradox of a Man stands before us, the One who stands above the clouds in morality and teaching, yet stoops so low as to wash our feet and touch our leprosy. Before His trusted followers He acknowledged openly that He indeed was the prophesied Messiah, yet before the tribunals He shrouded His identity with deep secrets, to the anger of His opponents. This same Jesus openly attacked His opponents in public, only to weep soon after: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Matthew 23:37-39, ESV).

The story of Jesus Christ is easily the most known to history, simple and beautiful as it is; yet one that does not cease to confound the scholars by the depths and greater beauty that lies in the study of the original texts about Him. And now the question lies open, the one that will be explored in the following work: why the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as their Messiah, and similarly why Jesus hid His full identity from them, boldly opposing them instead.

Now, a few basic assumptions must be made at the outset. First of all, the Bible will be taken as the primary source for this study, and will be seen as authoritative and correct in all matters, though it will be balanced and critiqued with non-biblical sources. Also, it will be assumed that Jesus indeed was the Christ, as the Scriptures attest to, that He is the fulfillment of all the prophecies about Himself, and that He is perfectly God and man at the same time (e.g. John 1:1-3).

To begin, Christ’s direct and bold opposition to the Jewish leaders, headed up mainly by the Pharisees, will be considered. The following passage is a precursor to the lament quoted earlier, as Jesus teaches outside of Jerusalem’s city limits, speaking to the crowds and His disciples (Matthew 23:1):

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! … [You] outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:23-24, 28)

At first glance, the intense verbal abuse that Jesus heaps on the Pharisees seems very strange. Were they not the pristine example of piety and holiness to the common Jew of the time? Did they not strive to follow the Law? As will be seen, the fierce contention between the Jewish leaders and Christ was the reason why they rejected Him, and why He opposed them. On what was their contention built?

The center of the feud, and what ultimately got Jesus killed, was His rejection of their interpretation of Scripture, and their rejection of His. There are many other surrounding points to why Jesus was rejected as the Jewish Messiah, but this seems to be the first part of the clearest and most important point. The second, which will be discussed further on, is Christ’s authoritative claim to be God incarnate.This claim cannot be made, or understood by modern readers, without first understanding the God-given authority that Christ exercised in interpreting the Scriptures without basing it on man-made tradition, but on God Himself.

Dan Cohn-Sherbok, a Jewish scholar, admits to the above, stating that “Jesus’ teaching is rejected by Jews (today as it was back then) because his interpretation of Jewish law is at variance with rabbinic tradition” (78). Did Jesus have a low view of Scripture, or take more lightly some parts of the Law? Of course not, read what He said:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven… (Matthew 5:17-19a)

Clearly Jesus had a heightened view of Scripture, as the absolute authority. What then angered Him about the Pharisees’ teaching? The question is asked because He says in the very next verse: “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Torah from 14th Century

The problem has to do with something the leaders of Israel called the oral Torah, an oral tradition passed down to the Jewish leaders, said to have come directly from Moses, as David Klinghoffer explains, another Jewish scholar (24-5). He explains that, “the rabbis said they could trace the genealogy (originally from Moses) by which these meanings had been orally transmitted” (25). The Torah, being the first five books in the Hebrew Bible, and in the Holy Bible, were thought to be “cryptic” and full of “textual difficulties” and “gaps of logic,” the actual writing be taken more as a “blueprint” that is a “code, a locked text…the product of a unique editing” (25-6, 59). And so, to interpret Scripture, Pharisees and rabbis of Jesus’ day would depend on the teachings of their forefathers to understand difficult passages. What ensued was the ability to add to the Torah concepts that were extra-Biblical, tedious description of laws, and most importantly, the ability to have unquestioned authority with the layman.

It seems highly unlikely that the modern-day reader would accept this theory of the Pharisees to be true, and for Jesus it was no question—they had added to Scripture. In a debate with the Pharisees early on Jesus pronounces void the oral Torah, in Mark 7:1-4, and 8-9:

Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of [Jesus’] disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) … “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!” (Italics mine)

Without previous understanding of the oral Torah, this passage makes little sense. Even Klinghoffer admits to this: “Whether or not you accept this rabbinic theory as a rendition of an actual historical transmission of data (passed down orally instead of in written form), it is impossible to understand Judaism of this period without at least appreciating the theory” (26; italics mine). He firmly argues that the Torah is not readable by the common, ordinary person, to which the New Testament answers: “[K]nowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21; italics mine). Therefore the correct interpretation comes from the Spirit and not man. Christ agrees that right interpretation must be from the Holy Spirit: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:13; italics mine). Christ connects Himself as the source of all truth, equating Himself to having Divine power: “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32; italics mine). Christ Himself also proclaimed: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6; italics mine).

May 27, 6:30 pm – Youth Group, Yakima, WA [Personal Testimony]

May 29

• 9:30 am – NLBC, Lynnwood, WA [II Timothy 2:14-26]

• 6:30 pm – Northgate BC, Seattle, WA [Psalm 131]

June 5, 9:45 am – Centrelia BC, Centrelia, WA [Mark 14:53-65]

June 12, 9:00 am – visit to Tieton Drive BC, Yakima, WA

June 19, 9:30 am – NLBC, Lynnwood, WA [Mark 14:53-65]

June 26, 10 am – Hope, Shoreline, WA [Exodus 4]

July 3, 9:30 am – NLBC, Lynnwood, WA [TBD]

CMML USA

This is a great new website that I am so glad to see up-and-running. The purpose of the website is to keep people informed about the hundreds of missionaries around the world under the organization of Christian Missions in Many Lands Inc, a wonderful organization whose goal is “serving those who serve”. For example, both Jim Elliot and Pete Fleming were sent out through CMML, they became historic martyrs in Ecuador in 1956.

Lord willing I hope to be part of this organization in the near future, in some Latin American country. We will see where God leads.

Here are relatives of mine on the field whose profile is already available:

Mark and Carol Mattix. My parents, in Camiri, Bolivia.

Jesse and Janel Mattix. My brother, in Camiri, Bolivia.

Jerry and Sarah Mattix. My brother, in Eastern Turkey.

Luke and Gina Johnson. My sister, in Kigoma, Tanzania.

Two types of children: which are you?

With these details in mind, it can now be asked, why did David write what he did in Psalm 131?

A Song of Ascents. Of David.

1 O Lord, my heart is not lifted up;

my eyes are not raised too high;

I do not occupy myself with things

too great and too marvelous for me.

2 But I have calmed and quieted my soul,

like a weaned child with its mother;

like a weaned child is my soul within me.

3 O Israel, hope in the Lord

from this time forth and forevermore. (Psalm 131)

David begins this part of his prayer with, O Lord, my heart is not lifted up (1a). David had proved this by his lifestyle, as we have seen before in the examples of Goliath and Saul, among many others. He was a living example to Israelites of one who had the ‘right’ to be proud, but who chose to humble himself before God. David here confesses this, boldly declaring this to be true about his character. As in many other places, it is not saying that David had attained a perfectly humble heart, but that he strove to be so continually. If he were perfectly humble, why would he pray this way to God? Praying implies asking, and such praying is important to the Christian, to express to God the desire to be complete in a certain area—humility being this one. This is the first of David’s three references to pride, and they are all visual images. This is of a heart (being the center of emotion to the Jewish reader, much like we think of our mind), that is not self-exalting, a mind that does not think itself important. A person may very well look and act in humility, but only God can read the depths and intangibles of the mind. David opens this to God’s prying hands, that he might be openly examined, and have pride removed at the root.

Next he prays, my eyes are not raised too high (1b), stating that he was not ambitious for gain beyond what God gave him; he was content with what was given to him. Perhaps the image could be referenced to someone that has eaten a full and good meal, yet upon seeing more food in another place, while still being full, wishes to gorge himself on that food also. In the context, this is truly a strange statement to David, from a worldly standpoint. He was king, and he was to lead his people to victories, how could he be content already? Kings of the world have largely been known to possess a great greed to conquer, gain riches, and be acclaimed as better than any predecessor. David was nothing like this, by his actions, and his prayer shows his desire to be more so like this. Then is despondency and laziness the attitude we should hold to? Absolutely not! Solomon, David’s son, taught, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might” (Ecclesiastes 9:10a). What David is doing in this statement, is admitting his position before God. Man can do nothing without God’s enabling, as Isaiah proclaims,

All flesh is grass,

and all its beauty is like the flower of the field.

The grass withers, the flower fades

when the breath of the LORD blows on it;

surely the people are grass.

The grass withers, the flower fades,

but the word of our God will stand forever. (40:6b-8)

Next, David examines his actions, I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me (131:1c). As one can see, he is clearly working from the root of the sin of pride, to the outward appearance of it. Many times Christians desire to strip themselves of the outward appearances of sin, but leave the soul and mind without remedy. We must be holistically healed, as Christians, first of the heart, but true inner change must lead to outer change. David realized that there were many difficulties in life, hard things to understand, which were far beyond him. Even Solomon, the wisest man on earth, and his son, often stopped short of pretending to understand the depth of philosophy. He stated that man was but “vapor” and his pursuits were passing as the thinnest of vapors, yet he could not completely understand why (e.g. Ecclesiastes 1:1, Amplified Bible). Moses warns against the arrogance of trying to understand things beyond our ability, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29, ESV). Clearly there is a distinction made by God between what is fully clear to mankind and what has not been declared to us.

How can man possibly understand the Trinity in its fullness, or the incarnation of Christ, or God’s sovereignty coinciding with man’s free will? Such a man is arrogant, as Spurgeon elegantly puts it, like “a little child that has just come off its mother’s knee and it expects to understand a book on trigonometry, and cries because it cannot” (3:114).God cannot be ‘put in a box’ as many theologians would have Him, and to this Spurgeon also has strong words: “Some want to shape the Scriptures to their creed, and they get a very nice square creed too,…it is wonderful how they do it, but I would rather have a crooked creed and a straight Bible, than I would try to twist the Bible round to suit what I believe” (3:114).

David, similarly responds to such pride in intelligence, [b]ut I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child is my soul within me (Psalm 131:2), this being the climax of the Psalm. The job of the Christian and of the preacher, are not to be occupied with oneself, but to rid oneself of pride and live a life for God and others. So now we in David, after laying open to God’s eyes these three forms of pride, a desire to be rid of it. But why would David want to have all of his pride extracted? Sin, even the great sin of pride, has great sweetness to doing it. It is delightful to be full of pride, but David longs for the greatest of all sweetness, God himself, portrayed in the loving arms of a mother. How disconsolate, frustrating, and agonizing is a child who will not stop crying? For most crying in a child is pride, especially as grows slowly older, for now they seek to take advantage of their mother’s love and force them to give them all they desire. There is no care for the mother herself, for her needs, for her tiredness.

Such is a baby Christian, one who has never matured. He is stayed in his pride, as any in the world, and seeks only self-gratification. Even in church, in the front of the line, at the head of discussions, speaking endlessly on things he could never understand. Is this not common? But the mature Christian kindly listens, advises, and continues to love those who pretend to be something, as if the church were a hierarchy. If this is seen in church, how much more is this seen in the Christians’ relationship to God? We treat Him as a ‘cosmic lottery machine,’ and a ‘sugar daddy.’ But man was not made to satisfy himself, but for the glorification of God, that God might be made great and us becoming something through Him (John 3:30).

To rest, calmly and quietly in His faithful arms is to be truly blessed. Blessed are we when we are as a weaned child, no longer asking God to constantly bless us, but recognizing that we have already blessed beyond our every need. Surely needs to require prayer, but how little do we pray for others, and how much less to we simply praise God in our prayers? We must learn to love God for His sake, not for ours, or because He has blessed us. God loves us out of love itself, his character (I John 4:10), should we not love Him in return, and trust in Him without alteration? If we were truly as a weaned child with God, resting quietly in a mother’s arms, would we have anxiety or fear? “He who fears God needs fear no one else; but he who reaches that point has undergone a painful weaning” (C.H. Spurgeon 3:114). The natural man has much to fear, much to be anxious angry about, much to be angry over, and much bitterness to harbor. But the Christian man has the freedom to not have such burdens. What holds us back from the blessing and freedom of being a weaned child before God? Our “two dearly beloved sins” – pride and ambition (3:114).

After this profound image, David calls out, O Israel, hope in the Lord from this time forth and forevermore (Psalm 131:3). And the call rings out for us as well. David was a living example of a man who had forsaken pride and arrogance, in order to come humbly before God. He had matured as a Christian to understand that the truly blessed life was one a trusting in God, and not in oneself.

How much more was Christ such an example to us, a perfect and complete example! He humbled himself beyond all comparisons, stooping to wash our feet, and take our filthy sins upon his body, that we might forever be free in Him (e.g. Phil. 2:1-11). In Him is everything we are! Surely man is but dust (1 Cor. 15:47), yet in Christ we are sons of God (Gal. 3:26), God’s chosen people (1 Peter 2:9), and heirs to heaven (2 Cor. 4:17). It is to this end that C.H. Spurgeon calls us: “live mainly upon the simplicities of the gospel, for, after all, [it is] the food of the soul” (3:115).

What a Savior!

The gospel is one that humbles us before our inability to save ourselves, to fulfill even the least of our needs, the greatest being our innumerable sins (Psalms 130:3). Ours is to trust God, to believe in our fortress, that He cares for us as a mother, and our response is to kill pride and to be satisfied in His character of love and mercy. For, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6; Proverbs 3:34). In our world full of anxiety, business, and frustration, this truly is good news. Our restless souls long to be satisfied, and the many souls in this world scurry about seeking to put it to rest. But how can you rest by running? Let us trust God, and set ourselves in His hands, and wait for Him to direct our steps, knowing that He will give us work to do for His glory, with full enjoyment, for our greatest good, and to His glory.

Works Cited

Calvin, John. Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Ed. Rev. James Anderson. Vol. VI. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Print.

Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. The Treasury of the Bible: Psalm 112 to Isaiah. Vol. III. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. Print.

The Weaned Child

The most overlooked, yet most prevalent and deadly sin known to mankind is that of pride. “We are proud by nature,” C.H. Spurgeon explains, “though there is not one among us that has anything to be proud of. It makes no difference what our condition is: we universally dream that we have something whereof to glory [in]” (3:112). It is precisely in light of man’s destructive problem of pride, in all its forms, that David expresses his prayer to God in Psalm 131. John Calvin summarizes the alternative to pride, in that “those who, like David, submit themselves to God, keeping in their own sphere, moderate in their desires, will enjoy a life of tranquility and assurance” (5:140; italics mine). By careful study and application of this simple, yet profound Psalm, a right understanding of humility can be understood, with its great benefits and joys, and rest can be given to the restless soul of mankind. Psalm 131:

A Song of Ascents. Of David.

1 O Lord, my heart is not lifted up;

my eyes are not raised too high;

I do not occupy myself with things

too great and too marvelous for me.

2 But I have calmed and quieted my soul,

like a weaned child with its mother;

like a weaned child is my soul within me.

3 O Israel, hope in the Lord

from this time forth and forevermore. (ESV)

The brevity of this Psalm is clearly remarkable, given the depth and intricacy and weight of the truth it contains.

First of all, to fully appreciate David’s prayer, the historical context must be put in place. From the perspective of the modern reader, it becomes almost impossible to connect most Psalms to past, historical events; in the long run it is a blessing, for it lets the Psalms be applied to varied circumstances the Christian faces. Yet, some important connections can be made to events in the life of David, and this Psalm almost fits as an overview to his lifestyle of humility and trust in God.

1 Samuel 17:24-37 shows David, as he comes in wartime to his brother, shocked by the terror Goliath has inflicted on Israel’s army. His brother, Eliab, accuses the shepherd boy of pride (28), but God did not see it as such, for not long after this the giant lay headless on the battlefield, with the Philistines routed (48-54). God had upheld His servant, David, honoring his zeal for God (Psalm 69:9), for he had boldly trusted in God and not himself. Conversely, these same characteristics can be seen of David in a different situation, as he did not even dare touch God’s king, Saul, when the opportunity was before him multiple times (I Samuel 24, 26). His desire was to do God’s will in all things, and did not consider himself to have any right or authority in and of himself. Naturally, a high view of ourselves defines us: “We have need continually to be kept lowly before God, for pride is the besetting sin of mankind” (C.H. Spurgeon 3:113).

Moving forward now, to the text of Psalm 131 itself, some specific notes must be made on the form of the Psalm and on its immediate context within the Psalms. Psalm 131 is interesting, not only for its shortness, but for its distinction from other psalms surrounding it, not fitting the common mold as far as type. By itself, this Psalm only shows a confession of trust (131:1-2) and a call for others to trust in God (3). The Psalm also includes some important Messianic nuances, but it is not primarily this. This challenge, to categorize this Psalm, is answered by the immediate context of Psalms 130 and 132. Both of these are clearly lament Psalms, showing the Psalmist calling out to God for help in his desperate need.

Psalm 130 is particularly interesting, for one can see, from a simple reading that there are several important parallels between the two. It begins with the common lament, asking God for help (1-2) and then moves into a confession of trust where God is upheld as merciful (3-4). The parallel is then very strong beginning in verse 5 and through the end of the Psalm:

5 I wait for the LORD, my soul waits,

and in his word I hope;

6 my soul waits for the Lord

more than watchmen for the morning,

more than watchmen for the morning.

7 O Israel, hope in the LORD!

For with the LORD there is steadfast love,

and with him is plentiful redemption.

8 And he will redeem Israel

from all his iniquities.

The previous context is that God forgives sins, and thus is worthy of fear and hope (4). True humility is the outcome of these characteristics, one that knows God is over all things and man is nothing, yet one that believes God to be true to His character of mercy and love. This leads the Psalmist to long for God, to wait and hope in Him (5-6). Clearly, waiting for God is not an easy place, but one that requires complete trust, patience, and ultimately a resting in His ability to save. The parallel of this is clearly seen in Psalm 131:1-2.

Also, the repetitive nature of both Psalms is important, because not only are the phrases “more than watchmen for the morning” (130:6b) and “like a weaned child” (131:2b) repeated in both, but they hold a similar purpose. Both positions, that of a watchman carefully keeping watch throughout the night, and a child in his mother’s arms, express trust and hope. The watchman has not seen his hope realized as he “waits for the Lord”, but the child has, as he is as a soul in God’s arms. Lastly, the conclusion to both Psalms is likely the clearest of all, with a call for Israel as a nation to “hope in the Lord” (130:7a; 131:3a).

These three reasons seem to connect these two Psalms together, and a conclusion can be drawn that perhaps these two were originally one and the same Psalm, or written at a similar time, or at least written with the same purpose in mind. These two Psalms, then, together seem to constitute a lament, with Psalm 131 being the confession of trust and a call for Israel to return to God.

[to follow...a phrase by phrase look at Psalm of 131]