Now that the controversy over the status of the hearing itself has been covered, let’s look at another big scholarly debate—what exactly triggered the blasphemy charge? It isn’t as obvious as it may appear once we take extra-biblical accounts from that same time period into account.

If you can’t see the podcast player, click here.

⁵³ And they led Jesus to the high priest. And all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes came together. ⁵⁴ And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he was sitting with the guards and warming himself at the fire. ⁵⁵ Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. ⁵⁶ For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. ⁵⁷ And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, ⁵⁸ “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.’” ⁵⁹ Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. ⁶⁰ 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?” ⁶¹ But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” ⁶² 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.” ⁶³ And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? ⁶⁴ You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. ⁶⁵ And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received him with blows.

This is our ninth week in chapter 14 of the Gospel of Mark and the second half of my teaching on the Kangaroo Court that tried Yeshua/Jesus—or was it? I hope you caught last week because I spent almost the entire time explaining the difference between the Biblical Beth Din described in Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin and the accompanying Gemara and Tosefta commentaries on that, and the more informal Sanhedrin councils described by Josephus in his Antiquities. I am going to teach this from the vantage point of Jewish historical scholar Ellis Rivkin being correct, that this was a stacked hearing put together by Caiaphus and Annas for the purpose of coming up with some sort of charge that they could bring before Pilate for the purpose of executing Yeshua—something they had no authority to do themselves. As High Priest for over a decade at this point, Caiaphus most certainly had the authority to independently call such a hearing without preauthorization but didn’t have the authority to convict. For that, he required Roman involvement. The biggest controversy here, besides what the exact nature of this trial was—personal council or Beth Din—is what exactly triggered the blasphemy charge because it is not cut and dried. Anyone who says it is obvious or easy hasn’t really delved deeply into the issue because all sorts of scholars and experts, Christian and Jewish alike, come up with different answers and most of them are based upon some well-founded theories.

Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist, and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have six years’ worth of blogs at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids—and I have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for both adults and kids. You can find the link for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com and transcripts can be had for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com. If you have kids, I also have a weekly broadcast where I teach them Bible context in a way that shows them why they can trust God and how He wants to have a relationship with them through the Messiah.

All Scripture this week comes courtesy of the ESV, the English Standard Version but you can follow along with whatever Bible you want. A list of my resources can be found attached to the transcript for Part two of this series at theancientbridge.com. This week we are in Mark 14 again, it is by far the longest chapter of Mark.

Just like last week, in addition to the normal commentary list, I am going to be drawing heavily from three sources, the Kehati Commentary on Tractate Sanhedrin, which details legal procedures of the Supreme Court of Israel (the Beth Din), albeit from the vantage point of over a hundred and fifty years later, the incredibly excellent Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge Against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65 by Darrell L Bock and that is very scholarly, not light reading, not for a beginner. And an article entitled Beth Din, Boule, Sanhedrin: A Tragedy of Errors by the late great scholar Ellis Rivkin of Hebrew University and I will link to that article in the transcript as well as his scholar site where you can read more of his scholarly articles for free. Bock is going to be my main go-to source this week.

Going back to two weeks ago, Yeshua was arrested by a contingency sent by the chief priests, elders, and scribes including an armed crowd carrying clubs and swords. We know from John that some of these were Roman soldiers and given that those were the weapons of choice for quelling riots, it is very likely that this was a joint effort instigated by the High Priest Caiaphas and his father-in-law Annas under the auspices of putting down a rebellion. Some of the Temple guards were certainly there and probably constituted the bulk of the crowd. The soldiers of the Antonia were always on alert during the festivals for rebel activity and troublesome messianic claimants so I imagine this was not too hard to put together but it might also have required the pre-approval in this matter from Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea, as he had regional authority over the Roman troops stationed there. Judas had betrayed Him with a kiss and then disappears from this Gospel, never to be mentioned again. In fact, aside from the mention of Peter and his failure to be faithful, none of the Twelve will be mentioned by name again for the rest of the Gospel. The only followers who are mentioned by name and who will play any active role will the three Marys, Salome, and Joseph of Arimathea. Simon of Cyrene, who carried His crossbeam, wasn’t even a follower. The High Priest will never be personally named in this Gospel, but we will see the names of Pilate and Barabbas. So, the Gospel that has up to this point focused on Yeshua and the Twelve and those to whom He has ministered has taken a sharp turn. Let’s get to the hearing and see what happened and why:

⁵³ And they led Jesus to the high priest. And all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes came together. 

Leading Yeshua to the High Priest is very telling because although he might conceivably serve on a Beth Din (which is the subject of Tractate Sanhedrin), he wouldn’t be the one in charge of it. In Acts 5:12, he specifically appears to be separate from it but able to convene it. The one in charge would more likely be Gamaliel the Elder or his predecessor as the Talmud calls him the Nasi (Prince or President) of the Beth Din which met in the Chamber of Hewn Stone within the Temple complex. Gamaliel does appear to either be the Nasi when they tried Peter and the other apostles, or very high up in the esteem of the others, as Acts testifies to. The grouping of chief priests, scribes and elders, in the middle of the night, are almost certainly a private Sanhedrin drawn together, a stacked deck, in order to determine if they could justify bringing Him before Pilate, who was the only one who could condemn Yeshua to death according to the Jerusalem Talmud y. Sanh 1.1, 18a, “Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the right to judge capital cases was withdrawn.” If you remember from other teachings, the scribes were paid legal retainers of whoever needed legal documents drawn up but these wouldn’t be small town scribes whipping up contracts, these were high-level retainers of the Temple establishment. Legal experts in service of the Sadducees, very likely. Elders might be Sadducees or Pharisees or neither—most people were actually “none of the above” as there were only perhaps six thousand Pharisees in all of Judea and Galilee and far, far fewer Sadducees. Most Pharisees would be quite unlikely to participate in such a sketchy sort of legal endeavor as this—and especially those who usually sat on the formal Beth Din, which had strict standards. And the Pharisees were nothing if not strict about their standards and traditions.

⁵⁴ And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he was sitting with the guards and warming himself at the fire. 

Well, I know Peter gets a bad rap because he was a brash young man and thought much too highly of himself but, hey, he showed up. And as per his usual bold nature, he walks right into the courtyard of the High Priest. After using a slaughtering knife to cut off the ear of one of the servants (the kiss and the falling away) of that same High Priest. I mean, dang, Peter. And he sat, with the guards, at the fire. And sure, it had been dark with only a full moon or nearly full to light up the scene at Gethsemane, and maybe these were entirely different guards than the ones who arrested Yeshua but still. You have to admire his pluck—no matter how cold it was outside. And this time of year it would have been damp and cold. I mean, he was even sitting—which would make a getaway much more challenging. And this is the beginning of the last Markan sandwich, where we have the statement of a situation and then a seeming change of subject, before coming back to the first account. In this case, we have Peter showing up, then the narrative breaking away for the hearing, before coming back to Peter and the two different stories complement and interpret one another. We’re going to see a huge difference between Yeshua and Peter here.

⁵⁵ Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. 

Notice it says “chief priests and the whole council.” Had this been a Beit Din, the chief priests wouldn’t have even been present and because they are mentioned separately, they do not appear to be council members—and if you would like some of their names, I can give you that—Annas, Ishmael ben Phiabi, Eleazer and Simon ben Kamithos (all former high priests) plus the commanders of the Temple guard and the three Temple treasurers. The Temple operated like a small city and had quite the bureaucracy attached to it. The Temple administration should not be considered the type of legal experts who would automatically be serving on the Beit Din. So, we have them plus the whole Sanhedrin convened by Caiaphas. But here we actually have reason to give them some credit—they were seeking testimony against Him but couldn’t find any—which means there was no organized attempt made to fix the case other than perhaps stacking the council with supporters.

And here we have to revisit last week where I told you that the Beth Din went to great lengths in order to acquit accused. I mean, to great lengths. It was hard to convict anyone of a death penalty offense and they didn’t even like close votes. You had to convict by more than two out of twenty-three or seventy-one, depending on the nature of the accusation. I am also going to remind you that it would be illegal to have a capital trial in an upper room of the High Priest’s home (verse 66). This council is seeking some degree of credibility in calling for witnesses but what does their testimony look like and why is this a problem?

⁵⁶ For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. 

We talked last week about how specific the evidence had to be and the grilling that witnesses were subjected to in a Beth Din. A very serious command is written in Deuteronomy 17: ² “If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, ³ and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, ⁴ and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, ⁵ then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. ⁶ On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. ⁷ The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” And in Deut 19: ¹⁵ “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. ¹⁶ If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, ¹⁷ then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. ¹⁸ The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, ¹⁹ then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. ²⁰ And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. ²¹ Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

Back to the trial–

⁵⁷ And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, ⁵⁸ “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.’” 

Now, here is the interesting thing because this accusation isn’t entirely wrong. However, what it required was to not only conflate different accounts (meaning to mix different sayings together as though they were all given at the same time) but some of this required them to have insider knowledge that they didn’t personally have (from Judas perhaps?) and thus the testimony is considered false but not only that—who gave them insider information, anyway? In this Gospel, three days was only ever spoken in the presence of the disciples. Something somewhat similar appears at the beginning of the Gospel of John, but really there is no record of this ever being said, and some of it was never claimed in any way at all. It smacks of secondhand gossip—the kind that no doubt was spreading about this dazzling preacher and miracle worker. And when we look at the next verse, the gossip theory seems very justified.

But why so much gossip on this point? Well, in the Targum to Isaiah 53:5, contemporary to the first-century Jews, and in Zechariah 6:12-13 it was said that when Messiah came He would build a new Temple and Yeshua had caused a lot of speculation as to whether or not He was the Messiah. In b. Rosh Hashanah 17a, we see this “…But the heretics; and the informers; and the apostates…Gehenna itself will be worn away before their punishment has come to an end. And why are they punished so severely? Because they stretched out their hands against God’s dwelling, the Temple, and everything else that is sanctified.”

⁵⁹ Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. 

Firsthand accounts tend to be pretty reliable and especially in an oral culture, but that breaks down when it comes to gossip and we have all played the old “telephone” game. If the testimony had been prearranged or first-hand, it would have had a lot more agreement between accounts. So, I have to believe at this point that a Pharisee-run Beit Din would have tossed out the charges and unanimously agreed to lash the witnesses. Certainly, Gamaliel would never have tolerated such a thing. According to m.San. 4.1 Yeshua would have been acquitted at this point.

⁶⁰ 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?” 

As I mentioned last week, the High Priest had no standing to do this within the context of a Beit Din. And the question was irrelevant because the witnesses were false. But as this most certainly is not a formal court of law but a contrived hearing, the real agenda comes out. The High Priest is determined to make a case, any case, against Him and now that the evidence has proved unreliable, he must get Yeshua to incriminate Himself or it is all over. And I have to say that this is a good tactic because it is incredibly rare for someone to not take an opportunity to defend themselves or to set the record straight—or is that just me? But it is a trap—“Hey these guys said all this stuff about you, what are they talking about here?” At this point, Yeshua could have called His own witnesses but at this point no one really wants Peter, James, or John to testify because (1) they are forever saying the wrong thing, and (2) when Yeshua talked to them about these things in Mark 9 and 10, and about the destruction of the Temple in Mark 13, they got the entirely wrong idea because they did not understand what He was saying and were still very much devoted to the paradigm of the conquering Davidic Kingly Messiah. But more than that—in honor/shame cultural dynamics, a wise man must know when to answer a question and when to shame your opponent by deeming them unworthy of an answer. This was definitely one of those times. Yeshua was, for all intents and purposes, in the belly of the beast right now, in the courtyard of the home of the high priest surrounded by a Sanhedrin filled with his cronies instead of the members of the formal Beit Din who would have been horrified and would have objected to this on so many levels. This is Yeshua’s cup. He has to drink it to the dregs. It is the most important thing He ever did in terms of ministry.

But why were the charges of tearing down the Temple so controversial? What’s the big deal? It isn’t like He could actually do it, right? Any right-thinking person would just roll their eyes and say, “whatever!” right? Why should Yeshua even need to answer to whether He even said this or not since it was physically impossible for any person to do and if you don’t believe me, study the Second Temple architecture. It took being gutted by fire and an army to destroy it. But the Temple wasn’t just a Temple, and the High Priest wasn’t just the High Priest and the Leadership wasn’t just the leadership. Something had happened during Hellenistic times or perhaps before that had really changed the definition of blasphemy against Yahweh and that is going to weigh heavily into why Yeshua was condemned.

⁶¹ But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 

He remained silent also because they could not understand and must not understand and we are all familiar with the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:7 “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.” As Paul said in I Cor 2:8 “None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” This wasn’t a moment to try and get them to repent and see what the big plan was. But then Caiaphas asked a question that Yeshua needed to answer, the question I believe He had been waiting for—the question that would condemn Him but maybe not for the reasons you would think.

“Are you the Christ (Christos meaning “anointed one” and used in the authorized Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible hundreds of years before—not pagan, despite rumors), the Son of the Blessed.” Caiaphas asked the question everyone had been asking, “Are you the Messiah or not? Do you actually think you are the Son of God?” And in Matthew, the question is actually presented in oath form, “I adjure you by the living God…” which would mean that Yeshua absolutely had to answer. And there are people who would promote the idea that the Divine Name was actually used but that is doubtful in the extreme—you didn’t have to use it in order to compel someone to answer by divine oath. And there were so many workarounds that existed in those times and still today and euphemisms. Blessed one, if course, is still in common use. But why would they ask in the first place? What has prompted the absolute necessity of the question? Well, if you remember in Mark chapter 12 we have the Parable of the Tenants, where the leadership is flat out accused (albeit in parable form) of killing the prophets and the Son of God—leading to the controversy later in the chapter as to the identity of the Messiah, whether or not he is actually David’s son or something greater. Both of these claims were a shot across the bow of the established authority and although the crowds loved it, the authorities wanted to arrest Him then and there because of the particular standards for blasphemy in those times. Yeshua’s answer is going to really give them exactly what they were looking for. And they need to get it before Pilate leaves Jerusalem at the end of the festival because He wouldn’t be back for months.

But we can also ask—why is a Sadducee even asking about the Messiah? Well, there is actually a really good reason. Remember that this hearing is for the purpose of trying to gather evidence to make a charge stick before Pilate—who was the only one able to condemn Him to death. A Messiah isn’t simply a religious figure, it is an inherently political one. To say that the Roman Empire was paranoid about uprisings is not too far from the truth. And the Judeans and Galileans were a pain in their collective butt because it had become an inherently Messiah-seeking faith—and rightly so as it turns out. They were always on the lookout for the next Maccabeans or the long-awaited Davidic Messiah who would overthrow Rome. So, the identity of any messianic claimant was a political matter that was of extreme interest to Rome. If they could make the case that Yeshua was a political threat, then they could secure His execution. But then Yeshua upped the stakes big time and really infuriated them but it’s easy to miss.

⁶² 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.” 

No more avoiding the question—“Ego Eimi—I am” which is sometimes used as a divine designation but not always so we have to be careful not to get carried away and always assume it is. But that isn’t what I think made them angry actually because these particular guys (Sadducean collaborators) were about power and not about defending God’s honor. And it was entirely possible to use those two words without meaning anything overtly divine by them. He makes reference to the Son of Man from Daniel 7, the famous and enigmatic second figure in the throne room of Yahweh of whom it was said, “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.” Yeshua says that the Son of Man figure will actually be seated in that second throne (Rabbi Akiva famously commented that this was the throne of Messiah), and here’s where it gets offensive—I mean more offensive—to these guys.

It’s really the two phrases “you will see” and “coming in the clouds of heaven” that were infuriating. If you listened to my programs on Mark 13, you know that the phrase “coming on the clouds of heaven” is synonymous with divine judgment throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. They will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, a euphemism for Yahweh, and they will see Him coming with the clouds of Heaven. Yeshua is claiming here more than initially meets the eye because He is claiming that He does and will wield power on an entirely different level than any mere man. He will have divine authority (seated at the right hand of Power) and He will be their judge (coming with the clouds of Heaven). As the Angel of the Lord and as the Divine Presence often travelled/communicated from within a cloud during the Exodus, at Sinai, and in the Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple, etc. so Yeshua is saying that He will be coming on the clouds of Heaven and for the purpose of judgment—judgment authorized and justified by Yahweh Himself in His role as the Messiah. Yeshua is claiming that He will be vindicated, by Yahweh, in this and in every matter. As such, He had no reason to answer their questions about the charges against Him as they have no jurisdiction over Him—as will later be proven through the signs and wonders at the crucifixion, the resurrection, the destruction of the Temple, and through the miracles worked through His immediate followers as a sign against that generation. They will have no choice but to see it. What we see should bring repentance. Really, in essence, Yeshua is claiming to be the judge of a higher court. “You are judging me for the moment, but I will be your judge.” For them, to make the claim to sit beside Yahweh is bad enough because Yahweh is unique, and to sit with Him could be considered blasphemous (although apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic Second Temple literature are chock full of examples of biblical figures from Adam to Moses being exalted and enthroned) but when it is combined with the idea of judging the leadership, that is sedition (inciting rebellion) and claiming equality with God, who is the only one who can judge His earthly representatives in the way claimed by Yeshua.

Let’s look at Biblical and extra-biblical references to seeing and judgment that would have certainly been on their minds—“And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken” (Is 40:5). The Wisdom of Solomon was written by an Alexandrian Jew during the first century BCE and was very popular, it shows us a lot about the thought processes during those times, “the righteous will stand with great confidence in the presence of those who have oppressed them and those who make light of their labors. When the unrighteous see them, they will be shaken with dreadful fear, and they will be amazed at the unexpected salvation of the righteous. They will speak to one another in repentance, and in anguish of spirit they will groan, and say, “These are persons whom we once held in derision and made a byword of reproach—fools that we were! We thought that their lives were madness and that their end was without honor” (Wis 5:1-4).

⁶³ And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? 

Everyone is immediately up in arms, of course, because the High Priest is always forbidden to tear his clothing based on Lev 21:10 but really, let’s be honest—this guy was just a pretender anyway. This just tells us that he is a man not in control of his anger or justice or anything and who really has no standing in any way shape or form to be a High Priest. Neither he nor his father-in-law’s family. It isn’t like he invalidated his high priesthood because it was never legitimate in the first place. It was only God’s mercy toward His people up to this point that caused Him to honor the Yom Kippur sacrifice and the others—but we cannot forget that the Talmud tells us that for the 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, it was never accepted again. The ribbon never turned white as it had before (Yoma 39b). I always find it amazing how patient and merciful Yahweh is, and until the death of Yeshua, He accepted that corrupt High Priesthood for the sake of His faithful.

⁶⁴ You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. 

You can only imagine, being that I am certain that none of you, and certainly not I, can imagine this level of personal, ecclesiastical, and authoritative affront. These are people who have been somewhat above the law, for all intents and purposes. No one could move against them because they were backed by Rome and could not be removed. They claimed divine authority and undoubtedly saw their leadership as endorsed by God because He accepted their sacrifices—as proven by the miracle of Yom Kippur. The only thing these guys really seemed to fear was what happened to Alexander Jannaeus when he purposefully messed up the water pouring ceremony. They knew their limits and not to mess with the Temple cult but in every other way, despite being disliked, the Sadducean High Priestly family of Annas and the elders and scribes affiliated with their corrupt regime were still the most honored people in all of first-century Judaism—not due to personal excellence but due to position and power. If you’ve read my book about Honor and Shame, you know that Honor was about prestige and power, not about character. You could be a skunk and still be the most honored person on the planet. This family was not used to being challenged and Caiaphas was particularly politically savvy and therefore not prone to overreacting but he had probably not been challenged like this in his entire life and certainly not in a room where he seemingly held all the cards and was surrounded by his peer group. Yeshua had shamed Him by claiming that He was higher than Caiaphas and would be his judge. It couldn’t hardly be any worse. And he wasn’t used to being shamed.

So, he called for a decision that he would have no right to demand in a Beth Din and all of his cronies agreed, all of the people who had everything to lose by a challenge to the way things were, that He was deserving of death. They condemned Him as deserving it, although we know they had no legal right to actually condemn Him themselves and execute Him. Only Pilate could do it and now they had the charges that could be used in order to secure a conviction. If Yeshua could judge the Roman appointed High Priesthood, then it could be argued that Yeshua was claiming Roman prerogatives and could be considered a threat to Rome. This is how Rome could be persuaded to look at it but we will get to that when we cover chapter 15. As per the Passion predictions, Yeshua has not been condemned by a select group of the Jewish leadership but has instead been rejected and He will be handed over to the Romans come daybreak.

⁶⁵ And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received him with blows.

It’s amazing how petty and brutal we get when we think we have been shamed and challenged, isn’t it? And we know from the different Gospel accounts that just about every measure was used to shame Yeshua personally and publicly—not because they disagreed with Him but because He had shamed the leadership and that couldn’t be allowed to stand in an honor/shame society which is why I have always said I would hate to live in one. It would be like being in High School forever.

But I want you to notice something more—they are demanding that He “prophesy” but He just did. He has been all along. In the three (+) Passion Predictions, in His parables, in His testimony before them. He’s been telling them all along but the truth is threatening for them and really does announce the end of the world as they knew it. Post 70 CE, the Sadducees will have no power whatsoever and would fade into historical obscurity—spoken of by all of their contemporaries (people like Josephus) and all later historians shamefully. They are treating Him as their predecessors treated all of the prophets and they will kill Him by proxy, just as He announced in the Parable of the Tenants. And He didn’t call down fire from Heaven or curse or insult them. He waited for Yahweh to vindicate Him through the Resurrection.

We could and should learn a lot about being that humble and trusting in God that much.