Episode 137: Mark 67 The Kangaroo Court?

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.



Episode 115: Mark Part 54–The Great Commandment and the Son of David

Lest we make the mistake of thinking that all scribes are against Yeshua/Jesus, we have a wonderful encounter here and *gasp* an honest question for a change. After Yeshua answers, no one dares approach Him again—and after He brings up His own controversy about the Son of David in Psalm 110, the leadership has no choice but to follow Him or kill Him.

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

28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions. 35 And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ 37 David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.

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 five years’ worth of blog 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.

Lest we err in thinking that everyone was out to get Yeshua/Jesus, we have this scribe who has been watching this whole event and asks, *gasp*, a genuine question. And this really is a big deal because, up to this point, it can really seem as though Mark is painting every single educated Jew in a terribly negative light but, like in all eras, we tend to hear most from troublemakers and loudmouths. You know, the argumentative ones—they are the ones who make the headlines when they make up just a small percentage of people. The people who are dazzled by Yeshua, they make up the overwhelming bulk of the Jews who have been portrayed up to this point—and they are also the reason why the arrest has to be made in the middle of the night. Now remember, chapters eleven and twelve are to be seen as one unit—they happen one day after another and the events of each day serve to interpret the events that come before and after. So, we’re going to review again.

Day 1, the entry into Jerusalem where Yeshua rides into town on a dedicated donkey’s colt, goes into the Temple, looks around and promptly leaves. These were both prophetic actions hearkening back to what was expected when a king would return from battle, would be paraded into the city, and would culminate the day with a visit to the Temple and sacrifices. Yeshua only looked around and inspected the place, which didn’t bode well. They spent the night in Bethany. Day 2, Yeshua is hungry and goes to a fig tree out of season, one with no edible fruit on it (just like the Temple the night before) and declared judgment that no one would ever eat of it again. Then they went to the Temple where Yeshua performed a prophetic act of judgment against the worldly and corrupt nature of what it had become, and stayed to teach people afterward. They left and spent the night in Bethany. Day 3, they got up and made their way to Jerusalem, passing that same fig tree, now withered so badly that the roots are even withered away. Yeshua looks toward the Temple and tells them that when they pray for the wickedness within the current Temple to end (the mountain tossed into the sea) that they do so with clean hearts full of forgiveness. Then they enter the Temple, where Yeshua’s authority and the source of His authority to disrupt the commerce within the Temple is challenged. He refuses to answer unless they admit to their official position on whether or not John the Baptist’s ministry was from God, and legitimate, or from men, and illegitimate. Realizing that however they answer will spell disaster for them, they tell Him that they just don’t know and are effectively silenced. Yeshua responds with a Parable aimed directly at these men, whom I believe were a delegation send by the Sanhedrin, telling them that they have been judged and condemned and that their rulership over God’s people will be given to others, which we know historically to be Yeshua’s disciples who will assume leadership. They go off and plot as to how they can arrest Him, and send the Herodians and the Pharisees, who try to trap Him into infuriating either the crowds or the Romans—and of course, He silences them both by portraying the Pharisees as hypocritical idolaters, by their own standards, when it comes to money. The Sadducees try to trip Him up by asking about the resurrection, which they do not believe in, and Yeshua proves the resurrection and God’s faithfulness and shows them up as not understanding the only five books of the Bible that they accept as authoritative. They are also silenced, not to mention intellectually body slammed.

And all that is the context that leads in to this very interesting encounter:

28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 

So, he’s been in the crowd up to this point—watching everything that has been happening. He watched as they tried to lasso Yeshua into making a mistake, into looking like he was inciting rebellion or collaborating with the Romans. He watched as Yeshua trapped the leadership of Israel in their own snares. He’s gotten the best of everyone up to this point and this scribe, and remember that scribes were the educated class of legal retainers of the day. They could read and write and worked for the upper classes, writing contracts, producing Torah scrolls, even teaching—it all depended because there were scribes of all sorts. But this one was evidently quite learned and he posed to Yeshua one of the common debates of the day—which one of the 613 commandments is the most important. And it is no small question. Although Yeshua settled the matter, it is always important to understand that there is a hierarchy of commandments. Some are weightier than others, as Yeshua mentioned in Matthew 23:23 when He says tithing is good, but there are weightier matters—such as those dealing with justice, mercy and faithfulness—which would have been shorthand for those laws dealing with caring for the vulnerable and seeing that they get justice.

Although I would never use any of my dreams to declare doctrine, I remember once, a few years back, that I was in a situation with people whose language I did not speak, and there was no interpreter, and I knew that if I did not eat the mystery meat in front of me that they would be insulted and I could never share with them about the Gospel. So, Leviticus 11 got subjugated to the need to love these people and share the Gospel and I ate it, and the results were good. By showing them respect and accepting hospitality, which is a huge thing in 2/3 of the world (or more), they were willing to accept me. I pray for different tribal groups in China every night and I remember one of the groups—they are way up in the mountains near Mongolia and live on maggoty meat and fermented yak milk and they drink a lot of booze. If you can’t sit down with them and eat it, and drink it, then you cannot preach to them. It’s a cultural thing. We have to be more concerned with their souls than our scruples. If Yeshua can die, then I suppose we can eat maggots. I just pray I never have to put that in action, seriously.

29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 

This, of course, is the shema which the Jews had been praying twice a day, as a formal prayer, since at least the second century BCE. It is found in Deuteronomy 6, starting in verse 4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” And you might notice that Yeshua’s version adds the word “mind” into the mix and this is an excellent example and proof that the Bible is not a science book. When Deuteronomy was written, people believed that the brain was simply skull wadding and not good for anything. Even, and this is funny, the Egyptians would preserve all the organs in those canopic jars instead of the brains—which they would throw out! They only saved what they figured folks would need in the afterlife. So, the next time you watch a mummy movie and they can’t talk—this is why. No brains. But in about 500 BCE, the Greeks figured out that it was the brain, and not the heart and the guts, that were responsible for thinking and for emotion. By this time, it was so deeply ingrained that certain things came from the heart that it had become idiomatic and it still is today. But Yeshua reflects this change of understanding by citing that we love God with our heart, mind, soul and strength. Pretty cool. God speaks to us where we are so that we can understand, not so that He can teach us science.

31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 

Now, there is nothing subversive of controversial about Yeshua’s answer. In b. Shabbat 31a, we see a similar answer from Hillel, (who was born in 110 BCE and reportedly died in 10 CE, but who was in power for the last forty of those years—I say reportedly because it is not unheard of to exaggerate the lives of great sages and such to the “perfect” number of years—120). But Hillel and Shammai were both once asked to teach the Torah to a Gentile with mixed responses: “There was another incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. Shammai pushed him away with the builder’s cubit in his hand. This was a common measuring stick and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same gentile came before Hillel. He converted him and said to him: That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study.”

But the answer goes deeper than we realize. It is no small commandment to love neighbor as self. In fact, we can see from the Bible that it is impossible without that New Creation life that Yeshua gives and even then, we do a pretty pathetic job of it. But although Moses would often give laws that made allowances for hard-heartedness, as we discussed with divorce and we also see with slavery and warfare and some other things—Yeshua never does that. Yeshua always begins and ends with our “creation purposes” and calls us to faithfulness to that. That’s why the Sermon on the Mount is so uncomfortable to read and why we jump up to make exceptions when we read it. We don’t want to live Kingdom lives in this world. We want to have some very beastly allowances at our disposal so that we don’t have to love neighbor as self and carry those crossbeams.

32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 

Now, this is the first respectful and genuine address He has gotten from someone educated since arriving in Jerusalem. The crowd as He came into the city on the donkey’s colt was singing His praises but He was absolutely snubbed by everyone who had the authority to make Him welcome in Jerusalem. When He has been complimented, as by the Pharisees and Herodians, it is a ploy to knock Him off balance and compromise Him. But this scribe gives credit where credit is due and proves that He was an honest man. He also addressed Him formally as teacher, which is no small thing coming from an educated man.

33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 

Now. Excuse me for saying so, but this coming on the heels the previous day of Yeshua disrupting the commerce in the Temple and the brouhaha all day with the delegation challenging His authority in judging the Temple and the Temple administration—this sounds like this scribe is agreeing. It was not unheard of for first-century Jews to see the corruption of the High Priestly family, given their collaboration with the Romans, as a condemnation of the Temple. The Essenes were particularly disgusted and we have spoken previously about the allegations from Second Temple era writers that the priests were consorting with prostitutes however, this could be metaphorical for describing the condition of this time with that of Hohpni and Phineas, the sons of Eli, who served just before the destruction of the site at Shiloh. Or, it could be true because those Sadducees (as we discussed last week) didn’t believe in any final judgment.

And he isn’t just saying here that to love God and neighbor is better than sacrificing an animal—he says it is greater than all the offerings and sacrifices. Just wow. Much more, he says. He knows that the Temple cannot fulfill either of those commandments and that our hearts toward God and one another have to be right. And, of course, the Torah would agree that sacrifices are nothing without obedience and love, but it is easy to lose sight of that and descend into rote rituals as they spoke of in Malachi. Sacrifice, which is how we translate korban, which is a word meaning to draw close. Yeshua is how we draw close now. He is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices—through His love and death, He made it possible for us to truly obey God and keep His commandments to love Him and one another. That’s why the Sermon on the Mount never tells us what we can get away with like the Laws given through Moses do—Yeshua tells us God’s intentions and not the allowances made for our hardened hearts.

Pro 21:3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.

I Sam 15:22 And Samuel said, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.

Jer 7:22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’

Ho 6:6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

These are all in agreement with this anonymous scribe. But Simon the Just, a high priest who lived three hundred years before Yeshua, had this to say, according to the Mishnah, recorded in m. Avot 1.2 Shimon the Righteous was one of the last of the men of the great assembly. He used to say: the world stands upon three things: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of acts of piety. Now, if Yeshua were to rewrite this list, I think He would probably say, “If you would just do right, the Torah and the Temple would be irrelevant as the first only exists to keep you from acting like brutes and the second is the place you go when you fail to not act like a brute. I mean, I know they did more at the temple than that but the Temple’s overwhelming foci were atonement and worship. If we would just obey and live sacrificially, Yahweh makes it clear that there can be no greater act of worship. We like laws, though, because we can mess with them and do the minimum and feel good about ourselves but the Kingdom is not like that.

34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Yeshua is impressed with the wisdom of the scribe’s answer but still falls short of giving him a golden ticket to the world to come. “You’re almost there,” He says, but doesn’t elaborate on that. Indeed, He can’t until after the resurrection. The final step into the Kingdom is allegiance to Yeshua as God’s chosen Messiah and King. But, again, we see that now everyone is silenced—the scribe has stepped in and honored Yeshua, in effect giving voice to the fact that He has now bested all of the leadership and on the Temple Mount right before Passover. Do you remember that I said Yeshua would slowly be gaining mastery over the Temple Mount and replacing the authority and supremacy of the Temple and the Temple administration? Well, it’s almost a done deal now. No one can stand up to His wisdom. No one can outsmart Him. And no one can humiliate Him and come out on top—and yet, He doesn’t retaliate the way they or we would. I mean, they are going to plot to kill Him. They will also succeed, even though it will take the unthinkable act of collaborating with Rome to do it. This is why I love teaching about and understanding honor/shame cultures but would never want to live in one. This one-upmanship and obsession with status is deadly.

35 And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 

And now, He is done answering questions and goes on the offensive with a question of His own. Yeshua is teaching now, in the Court of the Gentiles and perhaps in the area known as Solomon’s porch, which was a gorgeous colonnade along the eastern side of the Temple Mount—I will provide a link in the transcript. Now, Son of David as a messianic title first shows up in the Psalms of Solomon and we discussed this back when we talked about the healing of blind Bartimaus—who called Yeshua this as He passed by. And Yeshua didn’t correct him so obviously he had no problem with this. Note that He isn’t debating that the Messiah is the son of David, He is merely challenging them as to how they can say he is—and it’s going to become clear that what He is really asking is, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is merely the son of David?” Big difference.

Ps Sol 17:21-25 See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over Israel, your servant, in the time which you chose, o God, Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous rulers, to cleanse Jerusalem from gentiles who trample her to destruction; to drive out in wisdom and in righteousness the sinners from the inheritance; to crash the arrogance of sinners like a potter’s jar; to smash all their substance with an iron rod; to destroy the lawless nations with the word of his mouth; to make the nations flee from his presence at his threat and to put sinners to shame by the word of their heart.

4QFlor 1.1-13 In a Messianic commentary on 2 Sam 7 and Amos 9:11, “Moreover the Lord declares to you that He will make you a house,” and that “I will raise up your offspring after you, and establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be my son.” This passage refers to the Shoot of David, who is to rise with the Interpreter of the Law and who will arise in Zion in the last days, as it was written, “And I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen.” This passage describes the fallen Branch of David, whom He shall raise up to deliver Israel.

Sanh 96b-97a Rav Naḥman said to Rabbi Yitzḥak: Have you heard when the son of giants [bar niflei] will come? Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him: Who is the son of giants? Rav Naḥman said to him: He is the Messiah. Rabbi Yitzḥak asked him: Do you call the Messiah son of giants? Rav Naḥman said to him: Yes, as it is written: “On that day I will establish the Tabernacle of David that is fallen [hanofelet]” (Amos 9:11). That is why the Messiah is called bar nifli. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: During the generation in which the Messiah, son of David, comes, Torah scholars decrease; and as for the rest of the people, their eyes fail with sorrow and grief, and troubles increase. And the harsh decrees will be introduced; before the first passes the second quickly comes.

B Sanh 98a Rabbi Ḥanina says: The son of David will not come until a fish will be sought for an ill person and will not be found, as it is stated with regard to the downfall of Egypt: “Then I will make their waters clear and cause their rivers to run like oil” (Ezekiel 32:14), meaning that the current in the rivers will come to a virtual standstill. And it is written thereafter: “On that day I will cause the glory of the house of Israel to flourish” (Ezekiel 29:21)….see more on Son of David here https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.98a.6?lang=bi

Florigelium and the Psalms of Solomon were both written before Yeshua and the Gemara on tractate Sanhedrin hundreds of years later but cites Rabbi Yitzhak, who lived only a hundred years after Yeshua. Rabbi Hanina lived in the fourth century CE. All describe the Messiah as the son of David, the Branch, the one who will raise back up the Booth of his Father David. So, this is definitely something that the scribes would have been teaching, talking about, and debating.

And they taught this based on these scriptures, from which they derived the doctrine of the Messiah and the Messianic Age. We tend to take all this for granted in retrospect, but these were the guys who saw this stuff in the first place.

Is 9:1-7 But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone. You have multiplied the nation; you have increased its joy; they rejoice before you as with joy at the harvest, as they are glad when they divide the spoil.  For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian.  For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire.  For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

Is 11:1-9 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked. Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist,  and faithfulness the belt of his loins. The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze;  their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord   as the waters cover the sea.

Jer 23:5-6 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’”

Ez 34:23-24 And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd.  And I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the Lord; I have spoken.

Ez 37:24-25 “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever.”

Amos 9:11 “In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name,” declares the Lord who does this.

Psalms 2, 89, 110, 132 also alluded to a coming Messiah, a son of David.  And speaking of Psalm 110, Yeshua is going to quote from it directly here:

36 David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ 37 David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.

This is particularly damning (well, not damning, per se but you know what I mean) to the idea that the Messiah is merely one of David’s offspring. David, the source of God’s chosen kingly line—how can there be a greater king than David to whom David would bow down and do homage to? Because, that’s what we are saying here. In plainer English, this would read, “Yahweh said to my Master,  “Sit as my most trusted associate, in the most honored position in the Kingdom of Heaven over all angelic beings, until I make your enemies your footstool, bringing all things and peoples under your reign, in absolute submission to you.” David never dreamed of that kind of glory. And His enemies were never under his feet entirely—he actually had Solomon execute some of his enemies after his death just to wipe the proverbial slate clean—giving him the last word and final revenge. But here, Yahweh is saying that the Messiah will not have to lift a finger against His own enemies because Yahweh will subdue them.

In essence, Yeshua is asking, “Why are you looking for a mere mortal? Which of David’s sons ever surpassed him in accomplishments or righteousness so that they would deserve to be called his Master?” And considering David’s checkered history of doing some serious injustice, that’s a disturbing observation. “Who on earth that is born of woman can David possibly look up to?” I mean, other than Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and Moses—you know, the big kahunas who went before him. But people didn’t go around exalting themselves over their ancestors and fathers did not exalt sons over themselves—that’s like the opposite of honor/shame dynamics. A son doesn’t detract from the honor of his father, he adds to it. So, say you are Joe Blow and your son gets elected President. I mean, in our culture—does anyone know President Biden or former President Trump’s fathers? No. Does anyone even care? Not really. We just don’t have that kind of culture where we do that sort of thing. But, in the ancient world, no matter how much you accomplished, you were still “son of…”

And so, Bartimaeus called Yeshua “son of David” right before they entered Jerusalem and Yeshua accepted it but now He’s upping the stakes. Really, it dazzles the crowd but it also makes the leadership want Him arrested and dead even more. They know exactly what He is claiming, even though He won’t come right out and say it. He is more than a son of David, more even than the son of David as they had ever conceived him to be. And the great throng, for whom this undoubtedly went right over their head as far as the grander implications go, just wants more. But the leadership will not be speaking directly to Him again until His mock, illegal trial.

He’s a bigger Messiah than they were expecting. He isn’t going to simply restore the Davidic Kingdom—that’s just too limited a goal. He’s going for worldwide domination but not through warfare—the blood spilled will be His own and that of His own followers. He’s not the nationalistic Messiah of their hopes. He is bigger and better. Is it no wonder that Yeshua shows up in Revelation with blood-soaked robes before the battle? And with the double-edged sword of His mouth slaying His enemies through His words? But the leadership didn’t recognize Elijah when he came in the person of John the Baptist and so there is no way that they will recognize the Son of David, the Messiah, in the person of Yeshua who is as non-militaristic and unambitious as they come, who even tells His own young disciples to be servants instead of looking to be served. He heals and feeds and delivers Gentiles, for crying out loud. He even talks to Samaritans and has women disciples. He eats with sinners and collaborators and doesn’t bow down to the respectable leadership. If this guy is the Messiah, they had to be thinking, there was no place for their way of life—that of wealth, status, ambition, and revenge—in this Kingdom He is talking about. No way are they going to give up their way of life on behalf of even their own people, much less the Gentiles this guy is friendly with. Worlds are colliding.

 



Episode 97: Mark Part 37— Healing Blindness and the Identity of the Messiah

This is a good example of what is called an acted-out parable. The two-stage healing of blindness is the only episode in the Gospels where someone isn’t healed right away. What is this meant to tell us about our own spiritual state and why is it important to understand before the disciples head to Caesarea Philippi?

If you don’t see the podcast download link, click here.

22 And they came to Bethsaida. And some people brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him. 23 And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” 24 And he looked up and said, “I see people, but they look like trees, walking.” 25 Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 26 And he sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.” 27 And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” 29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” 30 And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

Now, this is a unique story we don’t see anywhere else in the Gospels because it is the only two-part healing. Why does the healing take place in two parts? Because it is another acted out parable! One of the overarching themes of the Gospel of Mark has been the blindness of Yeshua’s own people and even His own disciples, to the truth about who He is and what He is doing. Blindness, as we will see over and over again, leaves all us us by degree—one step at a time. No sooner do we think we see clearly than we find out one more thing we were not right about. Thank goodness tho—or we would definitely stop seeking and clinging to Yahweh.

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 five years’ worth of blog 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 teaches 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.

The two accounts that precede this one, and the one that directly follows, make this like the most ironic episode in the whole of historical literature. First, we have the miraculous feeding of the four thousand followed by the Pharisees demanding a sign—because feeding four thousand people just isn’t remarkable enough (yes, I know it happened in different districts), and then we have Yeshua warning His disciples about the poisonous Kingdom expectations of the Pharisees and the Herodians that are at odds with the realities of God’s Kingdom—only to have them thinking that He is passive-aggressively rebuking them about forgetting to bring bread as though He can’t make the one loaf they brought enough to feed a measly thirteen people. So, we have all this blindness. This week we will see a man who could see once, and has been blinded (like Israel), regain his sight little by little, until his sight is fully restored—and Peter will properly identify Yeshua, at long last, as the promised Messiah. However, blindness still remains and in the very next account, which we will get to the week after next, he will show that the blindness still lingers because he has no understanding of what kind of Messiah Yeshua needs to be in order to save both His own people and the world. So, the immediate background here. Yeshua has just faced a dangerous confrontation with the Pharisees where they are demanding a sign from Heaven. He refused and they got into the boat and the disciples were being entirely clueless about the important life lesson that Yeshua was trying to teach them. It wasn’t that they didn’t understand the lesson. No, they didn’t even realize there had been a lesson!

22 And they came to Bethsaida. And some people brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him. 

So, they crossed from the western shore of the Sea of Galilee in the district of Dalmanutha, and no one knows where this is, to the northern shore at Bethsaida Julias, which Josephus wrote about in Ant.18.2.1 “WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus’s money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar’s victory over Antony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest; while Herod and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof. Herod also built a wall about Sepphoris, (which is the security of all Galilee,) and made it the metropolis of the country. He also built a wall round Betharamphtha, which was itself a city also, and called it Julias, from the name of the emperor’s wife. When Philip also had built Paneas, a city at the fountains of Jordan, he named it Cesarea. He also advanced the village Bethsaids, situate at the lake of Gennesareth, unto the dignity of a city, both by the number of inhabitants it contained, and its other grandeur, and called it by the name of Julias, the same name with Caesar’s daughter.” Considering the fact that this is not only the hometown of Peter, Andrew, and Philip, and near the site of the feeding of the five thousand—I imagine that when they rowed into town it created all kinds of drama.

Although Bethsaida was technically on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, it was just barely across the Jordan River to the north. It was an administrative center for the Roman province of Gaulonitis. Now, naming the city for Julia, aka Livia, potentially the deadliest woman who ever lived—wife of Augustus Caesar and mother of Tiberias. If she had married Herod the Great, who knows which one would have made it out alive. But naming this city after her was a smart move politically because she was incredibly powerful. But this isn’t really very important. Just super cool. And remember that this is where Yeshua escaped to after the murder of John the Baptist when the situation got too hot in Galilee. Back to the story.

And people brought a blind man to Him. So, I like to call this episode “Ephphrata the sequel” because there we had problems with hearing and speech cured, and now blindness. The Isaiah 6 curses are being prophetically addressed one by one. “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ 10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (Is 6:9b-10) Yeshua has come not only to deliver but to restore. Of all the people on earth, the ones who shouldn’t be blind are God’s chosen people and yet in a lot of ways they are just as blind as the outside world—it is only because of their cultural upbringing that their eyes are opened to the reality of Yahweh at all. And we can see the same thing today with kids brought up in a religious home. It doesn’t mean that it all clicks, that they get it, no matter what the parents do right and some kids do it despite their parents doing everything wrong! God is the one who removes blindness and opens deaf ears—as Yeshua shows us.

We’re going to repeat the first verse again, along with the second, and see six of the seven parallels in wording between this account and the healing of the deaf man with the speech impediment.

22 And they came to Bethsaida. And some people brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him. 23 And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” 

The blind man is brought to Yeshua. The people begged Yeshua. They wanted Him to touch the blind man. Yeshua leads the man out of the village to perform the miracle. Spit is involved. Yeshua lays hands on him. In vs 25, He will tell the man not to go back into the village aka. Don’t blab about this. This isn’t just a coincidence. The similarity in language tells us that these two healings are related. But what else do we see here? I love that Yeshua personally takes this blind man by the hand and personally leads him outside the village. In a world where the disabled were dishonored, Yeshua extends honor and restoration. Now, why outside of the village? Interesting question—it’s called a village not because it was small–it had all the trappings of a city but administratively it was run like a village. But it was an administrative center and so there was the potential for trouble with the Roman military if people went crazy over the healing and tried to make Him their king. He just got out of Dalmanutha after a life-threatening challenge and so He has to be careful. As we will see, it is vitally important that He gets to Caesarea Philippi unmolested. He can’t afford an incident now.

Psalm 146:8 says that it is the Lord opens the eyes of the blind. And no prophets ever cured blindness—so, again, this is a self-manifesting miracle where Yeshua shows that He is Yahweh in the flesh, the unique Son of God. He spits, and enough with the spit already, geez, and lays His hands on the man and asks if he can see anything which is so strange. Yeshua nowhere else asks someone if they are healed. They just are and He knows it and so we know there is a bigger message here, which we will get to in a few minutes.

24 And he looked up and said, “I see people, but they look like trees, walking.” 

This is important. The man wasn’t always blind. People born blind (1) don’t know when they are looking at human beings and (2) don’t know when they are looking at trees. So this is either an injury or some disease of the eye that came on later in life. Notice there was no exorcism and no mention of the man sinning. Stuff happens. And there is also no rebuke about his lack of faith so, again, bigger picture and we begin to suspect that this is an acted-out parable. Yeshua is teaching us a spiritual truth through this real-life physical healing.

25 Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 

On the second attempt, notice that Yeshua doesn’t ask him any questions. This now looks like one of his normal miracles where He does His thing and the person is healed, without a hitch. And we look at this and it is easy to see that the underlying lesson is that of the progressive revelation that comes with being touched by Yeshua. Like I mentioned before, our blindness comes off in layers. Many of the Pharisees who questioned, ended up seeing the light and following Him after the resurrection. So did a great many priests. Remember about insiders and outsiders—insiders, like Judas, can become outsiders and outsiders, like many of the Pharisees, can become insiders. No one is doomed to be an outsider forever. No matter how someone looks to us in the here and now, we have no idea what they will be. But God knows. That’s why we can’t condemn. Once God lifts a person’s blindness, some will kinda stand still who looked so promising and others who looked like the devil himself become the greatest of saints. We can’t write anyone off because we are just clueless. Spiritual blindness is crippling, and some people run when the shackles come off and some sit on Facebook and argue.

So, real quick here, let’s talk about acted-out parables. We see them in other places in Scripture—not just here. Both the feedings of the four and five thousand were also acted out parables of the coming Messianic banquet that will include both Jews and Gentiles. In Isaiah 20, we find out that Isaiah has walked around naked as a jaybird as a sign to Egypt and Cush that they would go into exile via the agency of the Assyrians. In Jeremiah 19, Jeremiah is commanded to buy a flask and to shatter it in front of the Jewish elders and priests as a sign that Yahweh would crush Jerusalem because of their idolatry. In Ezekiel four and five, we have back to back acted out parables. First, we have Ezekiel acting out a siege against Jerusalem and then laying on one side and then the other representing the judgments against Israel and Judah—all during the 390 days of laying on his left side he had to eat real Ezekiel bread—not the fake stuff in the stores. Real Ezekiel bread is cooked over animal poop and is not meant to be a positive thing. Moral of the story—just because it’s in the Bible and has a Bible verse on it, doesn’t mean that the context is positive. Then in the next chapter, he has to cut his hair and burn it in the city as a sign of judgment. And in Ez 12, he had to pack his bags, dig a hole in the wall, and leave the city at night as a sign that they would be going into exile. Fun, fun stuff. But yeah, you preach the truthful truthiness of your truth under a fake Jewish name on Facebook, I guess that’s a hard life too.

26 And he sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.”

This is the seventh and final link to the Ephphatha episode. Except that this time, it looks like the guy didn’t blab. Good on ya, mate! But I think this is important because He can’t afford for everyone to put all the pieces together the way the disciples finally will—and it was all because of this last miracle—even though they won’t fully understand until after the resurrection. Isaiah 35:4-6:

Say to those who have an anxious heart, “Be strong; fear not! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God. He will come and save you.” Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy.”

All of this has happened. The healing of the paralytic, the healing of the deaf man, the man with the speech impediment enabled to speak freely, and now the blind healed. Now, we understand. All these self-manifesting miracles. Yeshua has proclaimed and proved Himself to be Yahweh in the flesh by doing what only Yahweh can do and for fulfilling these promises of Yahweh. This is not a mere prophet or even the greatest of prophets. This is not just an obedient man blessed with power from on high. This is the one unique Son of God, the visible image of the invisible God. He performs these works and He performs them effortlessly without stumbling and failing like we do. I will tell you that I have laid my hands on people and they were healed. It doesn’t happen very often but it has happened. Yeshua never failed. It always worked. Even when He wasn’t trying and someone just touched Him. But these verses speak not only of healing the blind, deaf, mute and lame—they talk about vengeance. The Jewish Messianic hopes tended to center around the idea of someone who would take vengeance on people but Yeshua came with vengeance against the spiritual authorities who were using people to do their evil works. Yeshua came violently against demons—not against people. Prophecy was being fulfilled, but in an entirely unexpected way. All the people who say that Yeshua never said He was this or that—the more I study, the more I just can’t agree. He didn’t have to spell everything out—He acted everything out.

Now, from there they travel twenty-five miles north of Bethsaida to Mt Hermon, to a region that is very important in the beliefs of Second Temple-era Jews. In a couple of weeks, we’re going to talk about this and why what happens, happens in this place and at this time. We’ll be taking about Jubilees again and I Enoch. As I have mentioned before, neither of these are Scriptural and they have too many problems to be taken seriously as such but they do show us how Jews of the Second Temple period interpreted Genesis six with the introduction of evil on earth—not the introduction of sin that took place in Genesis 3, that’s different. But the introduction of evil practices and gross rebellion on the earth. Mt Hermon was extremely important symbolically and perhaps even spiritually. We’ll talk about that in two weeks. As for this week and next, we’ll just leave it with them traveling all the way north to the slope of Mt Hermon, to the home of one of the Herods—Philip, the half-brother of Herod Antipas who ruled over the Galilee. They were both sons of Herod the Great.

27 And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 

As I hinted at, Caesarea Philippi was on the southwestern slope of Mt Hermon, near the base at an elevation of just over 1100 ft in the vicinity of Dan and the ancient Israelite cities of Baal Gad and Baal Hermon. This a was a gorgeous place—well watered and lush. It was a very pagan city. There was a grotto dedicated to the god Pan in the area, dated to the time of Alexander the Great. The region was a gift from Caesar Augustus to Herod the Great about 20 BCE, and in thanks, Herod built an Imperial Cult Temple dedicated to Augustus. The Imperial cult, as I have not mentioned it before, was a religion that revolved around deified Roman Emperors—at this point, posthumously. I believe Caligula was the first Emperor to demand such honors before he died. When Herod died, he gave the region to his son Philip and Philip greatly built it up into a major center for pagan worship and named it Caesarea Philippi after Tiberius Caesar and himself. CP became the capital city of the region of Trachonitis and Philip’s home.

But right now, they are simply travelling there. They are “on the way”—which is one of our next big themes. First, He is on the way to Mt Hermon for an earthshattering encounter and from there he will be “on the way” to Jerusalem for His final Passover. And He asks His disciples the same question they and others have been asking about Him. Let’s look really quick at those questions. The first incident is found in Mark 4:35-41

35 On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.” 36 And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. 37 And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. 38 But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” 39 And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40 He said to them, “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” 41 And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”

Amazingly, this seems to be the first time that the disciples are questioning His identity. The reality has been veiled and had to be veiled. As Paul tells us in I Cor 2:8, it had to be a secret until it was too late to stop the crucifixion from happening. “6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”

The second question is part of the prelude to the tragic end of John the Baptist, which served as a foreshadowing of Yeshua’s eventual fate in Mark 6:14-16. However, this time the question isn’t being asked by insiders, but by outsiders.

14 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known. Some said, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” 15 But others said, “He is Elijah.” And others said, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” 16 But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.” 

So, His identity is an enigma, has been an enigma for all this time—because, unlike us, they have no narrator. Hindsight is 2020—oh, maybe we don’t really want to think of anything that way anymore. As I am writing this there are still three days to go. I laugh but it has been a very trying year. Started it out with the tragic death of a young friend, the daughter of dear friends. And then COVID and all of the needless division among believers because of masks and vaccinations as though these are worth dividing over. And my son Andrew’s three surgeries—the one the day before Sukkot and the two a month late, but now he is doing amazing and has a new job paying more than the one he got fired from after missing too much work due to his shunt-malfunction headaches. If 2020 is hindsight from now on, I think we should just keep looking forward! Okay, back to the teaching. Neither insiders nor outsiders have figured out His identity up to this point, despite His doing so many things that Scripture claims are the sole and exclusive rights and abilities of Yahweh—things like, but not limited to, forgiving sin and walking on the water. Add to this now, the healing of the blind! So, the moment of truth has arrived and Yeshua will be responsible for the next two inquiries as to who He is. So, His first question, “who do (other) people say I am?”

28 And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” 

This is no shock. We already had this account from chapter six but there is more to it than there seems. One, there must have been a lot of people whom Yeshua reached who were only familiar with the reputation of John the Baptist. Obviously, anyone who knew them both wouldn’t believe this. There might well have been a family resemblance as their mothers were both cousins (via Mary’s mother, who was from the house of Judah via her father, Heli (Eli), and from the house of Aaron via her mother according to her genealogy in Luke 3) but anyone who knew them would know that Yeshua was around before the death of John. As I mentioned in my teaching on Herod and John, John never worked a single miracle but there was probably speculation that a risen, vindicated John in a resurrection body would be able to work miracles and so that was quite possibly the mindset behind the thought that Yeshua was actually John part 2. Elijah, of course, was the forerunner to the coming of Yahweh. Let’s look at Mal 3

3 “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. 2 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the Lord.  4 Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years. 5 “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.”

So, this sounds like a fun encounter. But this was John the Baptist, who was preparing the way before Yeshua, the Arm of the Lord from Isaiah, the Yahweh-Warrior, the Lord Himself here in Malachi. A lot of the rebukes in this passage make their way into those leveled against the Jerusalem leadership.

But people also suggest that He is “one of the prophets” or, in other words, like the prophets of old—the prophets God sent to the nation until Malachi, when they believed that formal prophecy ceased and Yahweh stopped sending His messengers. That was a definite paradigm they were working with—no more prophets, so Yahweh was speaking through teachers instead—like the Teacher of Righteousness from the Qumran sect or the Pharisees and their scribes attributing their traditions backward to Ezra and the men of the great assembly and even back to Moses. But this is a stunning statement, that they are considering the possibility that Yeshua is something entirely old and also entirely new—a new “dispensation” (for lack of a better word) that Yahweh is once again on speaking terms with His exiled people (yes, exiled, because they were not self-ruled, see the prayer of Nehemiah 9) and perhaps doing wonders and speaking to them again. Perhaps this meant that they were returning to how God used to communicate and you can see why the leadership would not welcome this as it would weaken their hold over the people. Same old story, new century, right?

29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?”… 

Okay, the moment of truth here. They are on their way to one of the northernmost points of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, a pagan worship center then and nothing has changed now. They are very much in “rival territory.” They’ve been speculating, undoubtedly talking amongst themselves, but the whole thing with the bread might have gotten through to them. He asked them, point blank, when they were bickering about bread and wondering how they were going to eat, 17 And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” 20 “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” 21 And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

In other words, don’t you understand who I am yet and what I am capable of? And this was a while ago because it was when they were on the boat headed to Bethsaida, before the healing of the blind man and now they are on a 25-mile journey north to Mt Hermon. They’ve had a lot of time to mull this over. So, what conclusion have they come to?

…Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” 

BOOM! At last! Peter says something worth saying—which, of course, means that he is going to blow it when we finish up the chapter next week. But what is Peter saying? That Yeshua is the Divine, pre-existent son of God? Nope. Peter doesn’t have a narrator. To Peter, all this means is that Yeshua is the anointed King of Israel, the long-awaited Messiah come at long last to save the Jews from foreign occupation once and for all and to regather the exiles from the four corners of the earth. At last, we have the successor to Simon Maccabeus—let me read from I Macc 14:41-43:

41 “And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise, 42 and that he should be governor over them and that he should take charge of the sanctuary and appoint men over its tasks and over the country and the weapons and the strongholds, and that he should take charge of the sanctuary, 43 and that he should be obeyed by all, and that all contracts in the country should be written in his name, and that he should be clothed in purple and wear gold.

They were looking for a prophet, during the days of Simon, to reveal to them the identity of the Davidic King but in the meantime they placed the last surviving Hasmonean of the sons of Matthias over them as prince—not king. His grandsons were the first to call themselves king and they were messed up people. Simon was an interim measure until the Messiah came, and later his son John Hyrcanus and then things got nuts. And this was great news for Peter and the others. After all, they were the inner circle, the insiders, the guys who would most benefit when their horse came in first and destroyed the Romans and their nation was on top again.

The Messianic expectations of the nation were varied at this point but getting rid of the heathens and being self-ruling was pretty much on everyone’s menu of what to expect. They believed that the Messiah would cleanse the Temple of the corruption under the wicked Sadducean high priesthood, that the Romans would be overcome once and for all, and that he would usher in an age of righteousness and justice.

But why did it take the disciples so long to figure out His identity? Frankly, because Yeshua perfectly fit into none of the existing categories. He wasn’t quite the priestly Messiah, although He met some of the requirements. He had no army like David, so He wasn’t shoo-in there either. He wasn’t what the Pharisees were expecting because He disagreed with them so often. He was quite the enigma. But I mean, at least the disciples are seeming to head in the right direction and I imagine they can’t wait to tell everyone when they get to where they are heading.

30 And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

What? Oh man! They finally understand that, as NT Wright says, he is not just announcing the Kingdom but also declaring Himself as the King, but it’s a secret. Well, it’s a dangerous secret. They are heading to the home of one of the Herods, Philip, and then they will turn around and travel through the Galilee, ruled over by Herod Antipas, and then they will head to Jerusalem, under Roman governorship and occupation. A new King in town has only one of two fates possible—He will destroy the pretenders or He will be executed by them. If they begin to tell people, then an army will form around Him whether He wants it or not. People will die just from following after Him to Jerusalem if He publicly admits to being the renewed Davidic King. And if Yeshua is slaughtered on the way then His death is not going to be a fulfillment of the Scriptures. It must be in Jerusalem. It must be on the Passover. There must be the nation there as witness to His death. There is too much at stake now to risk premature exposure.

Next week, the other shoe will drop as Yeshua drops all pretense about what kind of Messiah they are following.

 



Episode 55: Gospel of Mark 1: Son of Man vs the Messiah

The Gospel of Mark points out something very interesting. When referring to Himself, Yeshua (Jesus) uses the term “Son of Man” instead of Messiah. We’re going to do a cultural expectation study about what the term Messiah had come to mean to first-century Jews and talk about why Yeshua instead chose the more obscure title “Son of Man.”

Transcript below:

************************
Sometimes there arises a bit of manufactured controversy over the fact that Yeshua/Jesus didn’t really use the term “Messiah” to describe Himself but instead used the phrase “Son of Man.” In fact, when describing Himself He almost exclusively uses “Son of Man” and we mostly only see the word Christos pop up in the mouths of others, many of the instances being editorial references after the fact instead of directly coming out of the mouths of the disciples and crowds to whom He preached. So today we are going to tackle this subject—Son of Man vs Messiah, and figure out why Yeshua used the one and not the other. Don’t worry, it will make sense. The explanation is really very simple.

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 Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have five years-worth of blog 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.

Most verses this week are taken from the TLV Bible, the Tree of Life Version.

So, before we delve into Son of Man vs Messiah, I want to address the Greek word “christos” which has been branded in some circles as pagan and there is quite a bit of bullying over the use of the term. Let’s just set the record straight, shall we?

We need to stop being afraid of words and we need to stop being intimidated by those who label everything as pagan but without anything but wild stories backing it up – there are people out there who want to outlaw just about every word that has been associated with Christianity, sometimes making up preposterous stories about pagan origins –– how about “Christ.” I was looking at the Septuagint a number of years ago and found this in Habakkuk.

**

Habakkuk 3:13 in the Septuagint – referring to the Messiah as the ‘anointed’ – the word is christos. The Septuagint (translation began during 3rd century BCE and was completed roughly 132 BCE) was translated by a group of 70 (or 72) great Torah scholars who were fluent in Greek, and is an incredibly useful tool for the understanding of what words meant in context at the time. Many quotes from the Tanach (OT) by the NT authors were actually taken from the Septuagint version, which is why they do not match up perfectly with the Hebrew. Evidently, the scholars saw no problem with using the word christos in Messianic verses so it cannot possibly be an inherently ‘pagan’ word. Just ask any Jewish friend of yours and they will readily admit that getting 70 Jewish scholars to agree on something is a miracle! And in fact, they agreed to translate Maschiach, the Hebrew word translated into the modern English Messiah into the Greek Christos all 39 times it appears in the Septuagint.

ἐξῆλθες εἰς σωτηρίαν λαοῦ σου τοῦ σῶσαι τοὺς **χριστούς** σου ἔβαλες εἰς κεφαλὰς ἀνόμων θάνατον ἐξήγειρας δεσμοὺς ἕως τραχήλου διάψαλμα

Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine **Christos (anointed);** thou woundedst the head out of the house of the wicked, by discovering the foundation unto the neck. Selah.

Psalm of Solomon 17:32 (Pseudopigraphic (false name) Jewish Wisdom Literature – first or second century BCE)

καὶ αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς δίκαιος διδακτὸς ὑπὸ θεοῦ ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδικία ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν ὅτι πάντες ἅγιοι καὶ βασιλεὺς αὐτῶν **χριστὸς** κυρίου

And he will be a righteous king over them, taught of God. And there shall be no unrighteousness in his days in their midst, for all shall be holy and their king the Lord **Christos (Messiah).**

Apart from the word woundedst, which is an offensive assault on our modern ears, there is nothing terrible going on here. Christos is obviously a completely legitimate non-pagan word that was in use among the Jews long before the first century because it simply means anointed one, like Elohim means mighty one, adon means lord, baal means master. It is only the context that determines whether the specific usage is pagan, not the word itself.

Demonizing words is a form of online terrorism, guys. Let it go. We have to stop policing each other and looking for things to hate because it compromises our integrity. If you are interested in more of these little tidbits debunking some of this stuff, check out the section of my blog theancientbridge.com in the section entitles “Challenging the Memes.” I have a lot of stuff in there debunking the pseudo-archeological claims being passed around as facts on memes that are actually pure propaganda.

But, back to the terms Son of Man and Messiah.

By the time the first century had rolled around, the word Messiah had become very laden with meaning after having very little meaning throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. There are many maschiach in Scripture, it is a word generally used to describe the ones anointed with the holy oil—kings and high priests as well as prophets. Cyrus is even called a maschiach in Isaiah 45:1. And then the term is also applied sometimes to things like the altar or the bread offerings. But by the time of Yeshua, there was an additional concept, specifically THE Messiah. Messiah as a proper noun instead of as a descriptive word. Messiah became a person, sometimes two people, but a solid identity laden with external meanings and expectations. To claim to be the Messiah in the first century meant certain things—political things. It was, frankly, so weighed down with meaning that the word was almost unusable. To be the Messiah carried with it certain unreasonable expectations that were nonetheless firmly embedded in the Jewish identity and dialogue of the times. Everyone had very unshakeable ideas about what the Messiah would do.

Yeshua didn’t come to do what they expected in the ways they expected Him to do it. He wasn’t the Messiah that they wanted or were looking for—He was, however, the Messiah that they and the world needed.

It is popular within the Hebrew Roots and Messianic movements to teach about the Messianic expectations of His time—some of which we know from writings contemporary to His day, like the concepts of the Davidic warrior Messiah in 4QFloregium, and the prophetic Messiah of The War Scroll—found among the documents recovered from the vicinity of Qumran. The Damascus Document makes specific reference to the Messiahs of David and Israel, kingly and priestly. The earlier Pseudopigraphic Testaments of the Patriarchs contain references to a kingly ruler and a priestly ruler, but the term Messiah is not yet seen. Then there arose later the motif of the Suffering Servant Messiah, possibly written about first by early Christians and then later by Jewish sources like Pesikta Rabatti, where he is called Ephraim. But, in the first century, Messiah was inextricably tied to the concept of the deliverance of the people of God from foreign oppression. As Nehemiah pointed out in his covenant renewing prayer, in Chapter 9:

36 Behold, we are slaves this day; in the land that you gave to our fathers to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts, behold, we are slaves. 37 And its rich yield goes to the kings whom you have set over us because of our sins. They rule over our bodies and over our livestock as they please, and we are in great distress.

Although there was a brief respite from foreign rule during the times of the Hasmonean priest-kings, they were forced to turn to foreign powers once again due to infighting. So really, they had just continuously exchanged one slavemaster for another—the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Greeks, and finally the Romans. The Jews of Yeshua’s day were longing for salvation from sins, a formal wiping clean of their national sins before God, where He would forgive them, provide a deliverer, and free them from being ruled over by oppressive pagans. Then they would be self-ruled under a Davidic monarchy once again, and under a true priesthood—as no one was particularly happy with the Temple leadership of Jerusalem. The Sadducees were just Roman cronies, getting rich and turning the Temple of God into a den of thieves. The high priestly family was disgustingly wealthy, owning the rights to all the little shops that lined the western wall and the area atop the southern steps to each side of the Huldah gates. To them, the high priesthood was a business venture—which is why they are the butt of several very nasty parables.

So, the Jews were desperate for a change in conditions. Unlike the Jews who remained in Babylon, they were impoverished, by and large. Year after year, more Jewish landowners were losing their property under the weight of oppressive Roman/Herodian taxation, on top of the 20% owed in tithes. Life expectancy was short, it was just awful. By the time the average Jew in the Roman empire reached 30, which was unlikely at birth, they were riddled with parasites, lice, they were malnourished, etc. Life was bad. Like Nehemiah said, they were slaves in their own land, giving their produce to foreign overlords and just managing to survive. The collaborators and educated and slaves were a lot better off, but the people of the Land were in a terrible state.

They needed salvation, deliverance and were looking toward the long-awaited supremacy over the pagan gentiles. They were waiting for Messiah, but Messiah wasn’t the type of Messiah they were longing for.

Let’s take a quick look at where and how the term Messiah, Christos, appears in the Gospels.

In Matthew, it appears 15 times, almost always as a narrative term from the author describing Yeshua from the outside.  For example, Matthew 1:17 “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the Babylonian exile are fourteen generations, and from the Babylonian exile until the Messiah are fourteen generations.”

Mark has six occurrences, Luke 8 and John 17—and it is mostly the same thing—the word is used narratively to describe Him years later, and not generally coming out of people’s mouths although in John, John the Baptist uses it a few times in order to assure people that he himself is not the Messiah.

The Synoptics all record once incident, however and I will read the account in Matthew 16 (we also see it written in Mark 8 and Luke 9)

13 When Yeshua came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

14 They answered, “Some say John the Immerser, others say Elijah, and still others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”

15 He said, “But who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Yeshua said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven! 18 And I also tell you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My community; and the gates of Sheol will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you forbid on earth will have been forbidden in heaven and what you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven.” 20 Then He ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Messiah.

Peter identifies Him, Yeshua praises him, He warns them all not to reveal His identity—and we will talk about why at length as we go through the Gospel of Mark over the course of the next year—and then, of course, He immediately puts the smackdown on Peter in the next passage for protesting Yeshua’s prediction of his own death. Man oh man, I feel like Peter a lot of the time—always putting my foot into my mouth.

At His trial, he is straight-up asked whether or not He is the Messiah and He will only say, “You said it” and then immediately makes reference to the Son of Man—which we will get to in a minute. This enrages the chief priests because they know exactly what He is talking about. Matthew 26:

63The kohen gadol said to Him, “I charge You under oath by the living God, tell us if You are Mashiach Ben-Elohim!”

64 “As you have said,” replied Yeshua. “Besides that, I tell you, soon after you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65 Then the kohen gadol tore his clothes and said, “Blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, you’ve heard the blasphemy. 66 What’s your verdict?”

“Guilty,” they answered. “He deserves death!” 67 Then they spat in His face and pounded Him with their fists. Others slapped Him and demanded, 68 “Prophesy to us, you Messiah! Which one hit You?”

So why were they so furious at this reference? Well, let’s explore the term “Son of Man” to find out. After all, it seems kind of a tame thing to call oneself compared to Messiah, which impresses us much more, right? Well, the Messiah wasn’t really presumed to be a divine figure—when we look at the text, we need to realize that we don’t see things looking back the same way they saw things at the time—how could they? 20/20 hindsight is a pretty great thing we have that they didn’t.

But anyway, back to the story—and enter the phrase Son of Man. Now, the Son of Man pops up all over the place in Ezekiel, meaning simply “human being” when applied to Ezekiel but it appears twice in Daniel, once in the exact same way it appears in Ezekiel, simply meaning “human being” as pointed at Daniel himself and of course the famous occurrence in chapter seven which we will read right now because this passage is the one that inspired Yeshua’s labelling of Himself as the Son of Man.

9“While I was watching,
    thrones were set up,
    and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
    His garment was as white as snow,
        and the hair of His head like pure wool.
    His throne was ablaze with flames,
        its wheels a burning fire.
10 A river of fire was flowing and coming out from before Him.
    Thousands of thousands attended Him
        and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
    The court was seated,
        and the books were opened.

11 “I kept watching because of the boastful words that the horn was speaking. I continued watching until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion had been taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.

13 “I was watching in the night visions.
Behold, One like a Son of Man,
coming with the clouds of heaven.
He approached the Ancient of Days,
and was brought into His presence.
14 Dominion, glory and sovereignty were given to Him
    that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will never pass away,
    and His kingdom is one that will not be destroyed.

So obviously, this designation of the Son of Man isn’t less controversial than Messiah, it was just not overused at this point. When Yeshua called Himself the Son of Man, He was either claiming to be the second figure in the throne room of God or just a normal guy. A normal guy who heals the sick, raises the dead, casts out demons at will, claims to forgive sin, cleanses lepers, restores the lame and blind from birth, multiplies food, creates wine out of water and commands the wind and sea. You know, just a normal guy, right? Not so much.

If an angel came down and said to you or I, “son of man” they would be saying “Yo, dude…” but Yeshua was laying claim to be THE Son of Man—more than the Messiah. Folks weren’t sure if the Messiah would be divine or not, it was very controversial. A lot of the verses and especially in Isaiah talk about God Himself coming to save His flock, shepherd His flock, etc. This was hard for the ancient readers to reconcile—how can God, who has no form, who exists as spirit, come down and save His people and yet we have all these strange occurrences in the Hebrew Scriptures of people seeing God and living—most notably the time where Abraham met the three “men”—one of whom speaks to Abraham in such a way that He is obviously God. It was quite the dilemma.

Anyway, we see from Daniel a claim greater than simply being a human being—this “One like a Son of Man” comes into the presence of God and is given authority. “Dominion, glory and sovereignty were given to Him that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will never pass away, and His kingdom is one that will not be destroyed.”

But more than that, go up to verse 9—“thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days took His seat.” Whoa there, multiple thrones. Rabbi Akiva made a stunning pronouncement about the multiple thrones in the second century:

The Gemara poses another question: One verse states: “His throne was fiery flames” (Daniel 7:9), and another phrase in the same verse states: “Till thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat,” implying the existence of two thrones. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. One throne is for Him and one is for David, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to this issue: One throne for Him and one for David; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: Akiva, how long shall you make the Divine Presence profane, by presenting it as though one could sit next to Him? Rather, the two thrones are designated for different purposes: One for judgment and one for righteousness. (BT Chaggiga 14a)

Now this was, of course, long after the resurrection. Akiva was taking a huge risk in even suggesting that “David” (another code name for the Messianic king) could sit next to God on His throne. However, Akiva is considered one of the greatest Rabbinic minds of all time. He was born a pagan and converted and became a great Torah scholar—if he had not wrongly chosen and declared Bar Kochba to be the Messiah, who knows how history might have been different. But he clearly saw what Yeshua saw—two thrones in Heaven one for the Father and one for the “Son of Man” to sit beside Him, the Messiah, “David the King” or “The Branch” as He is also called in Scripture—the prophet like Moses, etc. Akiva’s contemporaries were not amused—but it was for backing the false Messiah Bar Kochba during the early second century that it was executed, not for this.

How many times in the Gospels is Yeshua recorded as describing Himself and/or His actions/or future events with the term Son of Man? Twenty-eight times in the Gospel of Matthew, thirteen times in Mark, twenty-five times in Luke, and twelve in John.

9 Which is easier, to say to the paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, and take your mat and walk’? 10 But so you may know that the Son of Man has authority to pardon sins on earth…” He tells the paralyzed man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home!” (Mark 2:9-11)

27 Then He said to them, “Shabbat was made for man, and not man for Shabbat. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of Shabbat.” (Mark 2:27-28)

For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this unfaithful and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels!” (Mark 8:38)

12 Now He told them, “Indeed Elijah comes first; he restores all things. And how is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be treated with contempt? 13 I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they wanted, just as it is written about him.” (Mark 9:12-13)

He was teaching His disciples and telling them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, three days later He will rise up.” (Mark 9:31)

He said, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the ruling kohanim and the Torah scholars. They will condemn Him to death and hand Him over to the Gentiles. (Mark 10:33)

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)

And He comes the third time and says to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is being delivered into the hands of sinners. (Mark 14:41)

Commonly, Yeshua uses the phrase “Son of Man” to describe Himself in the midst of a controversy, in order to respond to someone who has challenged His authority to do something—like forgive sins, pluck heads of wheat on the Sabbath, heal on the Sabbath, teach with self-proclaimed authority and not as the Scribes did, etc. Although He uses it in the third person instead of the first person, it is always talking about what He has just done or what will soon (or even immediately) happen to Him.

Messiah, on the other hand, is used by others—and especially narratively by the Gospel writers—to describe Him. We see how Peter used it when Yeshua asked, “Who do people say I am” and He didn’t correct Peter and say, “I am Not the Messiah, how can you be so dense?”. But after His resurrection, Yeshua uses it as well.

25 Yeshua said to them, “Oh foolish ones, so slow of heart to put your trust in all that the prophets spoke! 26 Was it not necessary for Messiah to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures. (Luke 24:25-27)

In this case, He uses it exactly the way He had previously used the term Son of Man.

45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “So it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and that repentance for the removal of sins is to be proclaimed in His name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:45-49)

Now, of course, once we get past the Gospels, we almost never see the phrase Son of Man—Stephen utters it during his vision of Yeshua at his trial, which was the final straw before they rushed on him and stoned him.

And he said, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:56)

Why were they furious? Well, Stephen just repeated what Yeshua said at His trial—which resulted in Yeshua’s conviction on blasphemy charges, making Himself equal to God as the second figure of Daniel 7. Remember how Rabbi Akiva’s contemporaries were angry when he brought up the same idea?

The only other place we see Son of Man is in Revelation 1:13

In the midst of the menorot, I saw One like a Son of Man, clothed in a robe down to His feet, with a golden belt wrapped around His chest.

Of course, this is describing Yeshua, as the proper name for this book is the Revelation of Yeshua the Messiah, Jesus the Christ. Otherwise, He is described everywhere as Messiah, messiah, messiah over and over again—hundreds of times not just by Paul but also by James (his brother), John, Peter and Jude (also his brother). We also see the terms Son of God (ben Elohim in Hebrew), Savior, etc. But overwhelmingly we see the Greek Christos, shorted to Christ in English, which was the translation of the Hebrew Maschiach, rendered later in Greek as Messias.

Next week we will be starting with Mark 1:1 and talking about what the Gospel is and what is the Greater Exodus.

 



Isaiah and the Messiah–Podcasts and Transcripts–Seventeen part series.

Stuck inside? Ever wanted to really study Isaiah 40-56 in-depth without having to spend an arm and a leg on commentaries?

Are you a listener? Well, I have over fourteen hours of podcasts for you.

Are you a reader? Well, I have the equivalent of a commentary written out for you–with all my sources cited in the first transcript if you are wanting to purchase the books I used.

And, as usual, it is completely free of charge. Now, if you want to download these via podbean or iTunes, you can do that at characterincontext.podbean.com –which also links to my iTunes channel. 

If you have ever been interested in all the references to the Messianic Servant in the gospels, I’ve got that. If you are frustrated by the anti-missionaries taking verses out of context to get people to deny Yeshua/Jesus, I cover that. And it won’t take you as long to listen as it took me to study out and record! Not by a long shot! What do you have to lose?

Part 1–Comfort my People! A Voice of One Crying in the Desert! (Is 40)

Part 2–Idolatry in Ancient Israel and During the Exile

Part 3–Be Silent Before Me! Present Your Case! The First Idol Polemic (Is 41)

Part 4–The Servant Comes/Blind and Deaf Israel (Is 42)

Part 5–Polytheism and the Law of Continuity–Apart From Me There is No Savior (Is 43)

Part 6–Is 44:1-23, Hab 2, Jer 10, and Christmas Trees?

Part 7–Cyrus the Messiah? (44:23-45:14)

Part 8–Salvation for the Nations and the Marduk/Nebo Smackdown (45:15-46:13)

Part 9–Babylon the Virgin Queen? (Is 47)

Part 10–Shema Israel! No Peace for the Wicked! (Is 48)

Part 11–The Servant Speaks! The Second Servant Song. (49:1-13)

Part 12–The First Zion Song (49:14-50:3)

Part 13–The Servant Speaks Again! (50:4-51:11)

Part 14–The Good News! Your God Reigns! (51:2-52:12)

Part 15–The Suffering Servant Song (Is 52:13-53:13)

Part 16–The Third Zion Song–Your Husband Reigns! (Is 54)

Part 17–The Everlasting Covenant and Good News for the Outcasts (Is 55-56:8)